Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

I'm sure that by now you've heard about Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz if the U. S. continues to push for sanctions on Iran for trying to build an atom bomb.

Just to give you some facts to work with, read these:

In 2009, 15 million barrels of oil passed through the strait every day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That's about a third of all oil shipped by sea worldwide.

About 18% of U.S. petroleum imports come from the Persian Gulf region. Shutting off the Strait would be disastrous for the world economy, causing oil prices to skyrocket.

Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil producer. Much of the oil that is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz goes to China.

What say we consider a few questions:

a. Is Iran's claim that they aren't trying to build a bomb just BS?
b. Do we have a right to tell them to quit?
c. Even if we don't have a “right” to do it, should we do it?
d. Could Iran close the Strait of Hormuz?
e. If it tried, what would we do?
f. Consider this statement from a senior administration. “We've been committed to Gulf security for decades and it should come as no surprise to anyone that we'll do what we must to ensure the Strait remains open.” Do you read that to mean that if it comes to war it comes to war?
g. Do you think a war with Iran, provided we did not invade and occupy the place would be a good thing or a bad one?
h. Do you think a war with Iran, if we invaded and occupied the place, got rid of its nutcase president, and created a democratic government, would be a good thing or a bad one?

The vice president of Iran, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, recently made this statement: “Iran has repeatedly warned that in the event of a military attack on the country, it will not hesitate in taking all necessary measures to protect its sovereignty one of which would be to close the strategic oil passage.”

g. Do you think he got it backwards?

Haapala (Dan Haapala) says…

Reality check. How long would it take for the U.S. to respond to the deployment of a nuclear weapon by Iran and what do you think the end result would be for Iran? Iran and it's people would be history.
The key here is no different than Nippons belief in the success of attacking pearl harbor. The U.S.(including President FDR) said it wouldn't happen. ' they don't want to take us on.' We ignored it, and they went for it. WE responded, It only took four years to rebuild and improve on the greatest military force the world has ever seen. And it was a shoe salesman, thrown into the most important political position in the world, who said…Let's end this. Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the price paid for the attempt at global domination by a single selfish egomaniac in control of a country.
I'm going here because one candidate running for President scares the H E double hockey stick out of me. Ron Paul wants to close all of our bases around the Globe and bring the soldiers and sailors and airman and marines home. My question is simply why?
Prior to WWII, America had few bases around the world. That's not to say that we had no presence in foreign ports. You see an earlier President took on the job of making the rest of the world aware of the might, potential, but grace of the Nation known as the USA.

Haapala (Dan Haapala) says…

Teddy Roosevelt, was a brash and some say abusive commander. Teddy however had a clear understanding of the world in which the U,S, had to deal. Early in his Presidency he issued an order to the Navy to paint the entire fleet 'White' and then send the ships into every port of call in the world. The Navy had a full compliment of crew but the War ships also had a full compliment of Marines. They followed his orders and when they had completed their task and returned to the U. S. the President issued this simple proclamation…..”We will speak softly, but carry a Big Stick.”
Teddy's rough riders, and the Spanish/American war will probably go down in history as the milestones of his Presidency, but his simple quote above set a standard that future Presidents should have picked up on and (in my opinion) Only President Reagan did.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Dan,

You are so right!

Had it not been necessary to deal with Germany first, we could have risen up and zapped the Japanese sooner, but it would still have been a struggle to get ready to do it. Prior to WWII we had just 100,000 men in arms. The only tanks we had were a couple of used WWI clunkers from England and two light tanks, also British. We had virtually no air force.

“Ron Paul wants to close all of our bases around the Globe and bring the soldiers and sailors and airman and marines home. My question is simply why?”

Why? Because he is as crazy, or as stupid, as the people before WWII who thought that we could just ignore the rest of the world. As you obviously see by what you say, we may have been able to sit on our fannies and ignore them, but what if they decided they didn't want to ignore us?

I listened to people saying the same things in the late 30's and the early 40's. They even pushed through the Neutrality Act in 1935. FDR signed it, but only because it would allow him to begin preparing for what everyone with any sense knew was coming.

The Germans made no secret of how they felt about the WWI Armistice. When they signed it in 1919 they called it the “Twenty year armistice,” and sure enough, twenty years later, almost to the day. WWII started.

During the Cold War the Air Force, which basically only trained during all those long years under the gun, had a motto: “Peace is our product.”

Says it all, doesn't it, Dan?

What do you think we should do about %$#! Iran and its obvious attempt to build an atom bomb?

Haapala (Dan Haapala) says…

As a Vietnam war vet, the last thing I want to see is American involvement in another war. However, If next year the new Commander in Chief said, “We need all able bodied citizens to enlist and help us eliminate the terrorist threat facing America”, I would be quick to be in line.

Why does any rational nation or people go to war? It's not because they love to kill. It's not because they love to plunder. There may be some who find that exciting, but rational people and nations go to war because they want to defend their way of life.
The irrational powers, who wish to control the lives of those people who hold what they want, and they want to control those resources, believe they must take what they want and use force. (It's referred to in enlightened circles as the commandment, 'Thou shall not steal'). I refer to the first instigators of aggression. War also comes to those who would oppose those aggressions and vigorously defend freedom. I believe that is where America stands. I do not recall any war of American involvement that was started or instituted by America.
There is a great contigent of believers that say the War in Iraq and Afghanistan were instituted by America but I disagree. Those that think I'm wrong will likely respond here,. But as I understand history, the only time America initiated aggression was against British Rule in the first Revolution.
That said, If Iran announces that they have built a nuclear bomb and threaten or plan to use it , they should be turned into a wasteland, 24 hours after their people are told whats coming.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Dan,

Back when Jimmy-the-wimp Carter was in office and Iran made war on the U. S. by attacking our embassy and capturing Americans on what under international law was our own territory, I was for an immediate response, up to and including war. Letting the people who now run Iran get into power was a terrible error. They do not represent the people and never will. Prior to that time Iran was a beautiful place filled with enlightened people. It was the least strict of all Islamic nations. The veil was virtually unknown. Look at it now.

The war in Afghanistan is fully justified as a response to the attack on America on 9-11. The evidence is clear. The Taliban were not only involved with Osama bin Laden; they were aiding him in every way.

The war in Iraq was a serious error of judgment. The government of Iraq was a hateful dictatorship, but Iraq had done nothing to us, and was in fact incapable of harming us. Bush and Cheney were plainly the aggressors, bringing shame upon us. Cheney was a fool who knew nothing about waging war. He thought he could “win” by destroying the Iraqi army. He sounded for all the world like Bomber Harris of WWII fame, thinking that a war can be won by Air Forces, which it cannot.

We had Saddam right where we wanted him. The UN was looking in every nook and cranny of the place and finding nothing. Why? Nothing to find. Saddam was bluffing, afraid that Iran, being much larger and a religiously controlled nation, might invade if it realized he had no special weapons. We had him right where we wanted him. Given time we could have ousted him through peaceful, though devious, means.

To bad GW was born with a vacuum where his brain belongs. Cheney et al dragged him into a war he neither understood, nor could win. We did not win in Iraq. We just lost gracefully.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

You know what's really odd about some of the things we hear today about the armed services?

They sound like the things we heard after the Revolutionary War.

They sound just like the things we heard after the War of 1812.

They sound just like the things we heard after the Civil War.

They sound just like the things we heard before wwi.

They sound just like the things we heard after wwi.

They sound just like the things we heard after WWII.

What things?

The isolationist creed:

• Let's hide our heads in the sand of fortress America.
• We are protected by two vast oceans.
• No foreign entanglements.
• Let Europe take care of itself.
• Stay out of the Pacific.
• No American troops overseas.
• Reduce the size of the Navy; we don't even need a Navy.
• Get rid of the Marines.
• Cut the Army.
• Let the Air Force do it.
• Blah! Blah! Blah!

Honest to God. Go back and read what they were saying right after WWI. Then read what they were saying right after WWII. Then read what they were saying right after Korea. Then read what they were saying right after Vietnam. Then read what they were saying after the Cold War.

Then read the news from Ron Paul and his admirers.

You all know the old saying:

“If you do not learn the lessons of history you are doomed to repeat them.”

The question is: When do isolationists learn? Or maybe it should be: Do they ever learn?

Somebody needs to teach those people a little history.

The main thing they need to learn is this:

It's a whole lot cheaper, and costs a lot less in human suffering, including American lives, to prevent wars than to fight them.