They are playing footsey!
Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has a history of calling for the destruction of Israel. He supports terrorist groups that fire missiles into Israel almost daily and has held holocaust denying exhibits in his country.
So you’d think this vote would be a no-brainer, don’t you? Apparently not.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were the only “no” votes on a bill that called for:
the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel
The vote wasn’t difficult, didn’t mean much (in reality), but still; could Ron Paul acknowledge Iran’s efforts to destroy Israel? Nope. Why not?
UPDATE: A commenter or two writes, claiming that Ahmadinejad’s statements in October have been taken out of context. While this ignores all the previous times that he has called for Israel’s destruction, I’m curious why Iran’s own online news site also claims that Ahmadinejad meant to say “Israel must be wiped off the map” ? Maybe the commenters know the language better than Iranian’s news service?
Post Comments Here » 15 Comments so far
Related Posts:
- Ron Paul Stealing Content from Rosie O’Donnell
- Ron Paul Facts
- The World Needs a Ron Paul Coin
- Ron Paul: 9/11 Truther Supporters
- Ron Paul Promises to Cut Government Spending
15 Comments so far
Trackbacks URI http://www.lorien1973.com/ron-paul-snuggles-with-iran-president-ahmadinejad/trackback/
Leave a reply
More Related:
Check these Categories below for more on Ron Paul Snuggles with Iran President Ahmadinejad
Previous Post: Plausible Deniability: A Real World Example
Next Post: Smugglers Using Garden Gnomes for Illegal Animals
Search For More Articles Related to:
bret on June 21st, 2007
First of all, it is notable that STATE OF ISRAEL != JEWISH PEOPLE. So that’s point number one.
Second, why in God’s name will Ahmadinejad care wtf the Congress says about him? Why should he? He’s accountable to his country, not ours. It’s a stupid vote. I’d vote no too, in fact, I’d make sure to point out what morons everyone in Congress is. Point number two.
Third - what in the crap are we doing meddling in their affairs for anyway? Let Israel sort out its own problems, if indeed there really are any problems. Same re: muslims. We’ve got enough of our OWN problems in this country. Let’s solve them first.
Ron Paul for President.
ronpaul2008.com
Third,
lorien1973 on June 21st, 2007
Yes. I’ve seen this point before. Of course, it fails to acknowledge that Israel is a jewish state. Iran/Hamas/etal consistently want to destroy the jews. You may enjoy your nuance here; but it doesn’t really work in the real world.
Exactly. Why does he care. So why does RP feel like he doesn’t need to vote affirmative on this? It wasn’t a difficult vote really.
Israel, without help from the US, gets destroyed and the jewish people killed. By Hamas, by Iran or by someone else over there. Do you want to see this happen?
And you can’t even acknowledge the problem “if there are any problems” - nope. Israel doesn’t have any problems with people who want them killed. None at all.
Keep your head buried in the sand. It’s easier that way.
Ron Paul. The last hope. The best hope. For humanity (except jews). Save the Republic. Take the Red Pill. Ron Paul.
AngelaTC on June 21st, 2007
Actually, the oft-repeated “wipe Israel off the face of the Earth” statement is a mis-translation. You can look it up.
It’s ridiculous to think that Iran will hurt Israel before Israel will hurt Iran.
Israel can fight it’s own battles, especially when it comes down to words that were never even uttered.
lorien1973 on June 21st, 2007
I love how the RP supporters immediately jump to Iran’s defense:
http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/ahmadinejad_words.htm
Read. Weep. Pick an order.
Frank Rizzo on June 21st, 2007
Maybe he voted against it because nowhere in the Constitution does it say it’s the job of the US federal government is to defend Israel. And no, it’s not just because Israel wasn’t around in those days, because the Constitution doesn’t mention any other foreign countries to be defended either. If Israelis want the protection of the US government they should look into moving to the US.
C Bowen on June 21st, 2007
The ADL is a hate group so I wouldn’t expect them to be honest.
For a proper translation:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
lorien1973 on June 21st, 2007
Would you really like to examine this quote? Seriously?
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
Let’s take it for fact that this is accurate.
How do you presume he intends this to happen? With flowers? The Jewish people aren’t going to give up their country are they? So give me another way this will happen? Help me out here.
Dar on June 21st, 2007
Ron Paul has acknowledged Ahmadinejad’s words. He did not vote against the resolution two years ago to condemn them.
However, two clauses in this resolution call on the UN to take action that will start the gain of events that will pull the US into war. The decision to go to war should not be done this way.
Ron Paul has pointed to other approaches suggested by analysts. Those should be considered.
Why again after these years? Why now? Why up the tension? The resolution is clearly intended to bring war. This is not the way war should be decided.
lorien1973 on June 21st, 2007
So, its your estimation that it’s the US’ fault that Iran wants to destroy Israel? Or it’s the US’s fault for bringing attention to the fact that Iran wants to destroy Israel?
Another interesting take from the RP crowd.
Gene on June 21st, 2007
It’s frankly none of our business. This is an issue Israel and the rest of the Middle East needs to deal with. Our intervention is clearly complicating things and likely making the situation WORSE for Israel. there are even jews who do not believe in “zionism”:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
To withdraw political support for the GOVERNMENT of Israel is not anti-semitic.
lorien1973 on June 21st, 2007
Do you agree or disagree that if given the chance Iran would destroy Israel?
And do you agree or disagree that without US assistance this would happen?
University Update - Dennis Kucinich - Ron Paul Snuggles with Iran President Ahmadinejad on June 21st, 2007
[…] Clark Link to Article dennis kucinich Ron Paul Snuggles with Iran President Ahmadinejad » Posted at […]
Correy on July 23rd, 2007
Do you agree or disagree that we should preoccupy ourselves with matters occurring in our own country prior to trying to police the world?
I’m not so sure about Ron Paul, he seems like he might be taking perk packages from big oil, I do think he’s got the best idea for foreign policy, though.
It’s none of our damned business.
Matt Middleton on September 25th, 2007
… or maybe he voted against it because he doesn’t like the United Nations and its erosion of the sovereignty of real nations. Seems to me that there is probably a large overlap in those railing against Iran right now and those that wanted to get rid of the UN a few years ago. Now, the UN is on our side, lets support ‘em… Perhaps if we just stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, then we wouldn’t have adversaries like Iran in the first place.
Hotchney Coulis on September 26th, 2007
June 21, 2007
Have We Forgotten 2003 Already?
Statement on H Con Res 21
by Rep. Ron Paul
This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.
Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”
I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the U.S. thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.