Should we have expected anything less from a loon like Ron Paul??? What an idiot that man is!

"Any Nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one" -Alexander Hamilton

Ahmadinejad never said "wipe Israel off the map".  From a wrong translation, we get this resolution from congressman Rothman. One would hope for some fairness in the press (sooner rather than later). When the President and members of Congress repeat the wrong translation, and are implying that the Iranian gvt. is planning to use nuclear weapons (the enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Prolifiration Treaty), one needs to go back to 2003, and remember how false statements, wishful thinking, and the lack of evidence, have proven so many people wrong Ronald Reagan was right. Trust, but verify. See the article below on how Ahmadinejad's quote was mistranslated and taken out of context: http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/

PS.  I am no fan of Ahmadinejad.  He denies the Holocaust, and his economic policies are a nightmare.  Still, the Turkish gvt. denies the Armenian genocide.  In any case, I would call for a journalistic fairness even towards a despicable man.

He has finally crawled out of his Hole please go back.

The only reason he has said or done anything on this subject is because it's about Israel and you fill in the blanks. Another useless resolution that means NOTHING.

Where was he when non-Jews were being genocide in Iraq?

He is and always has been useless and boring and I don't give a D_ _ _ what this two bit of a congressman thinks he knows.

Resolutions are always wothless. Congressman Rothman thinks he knows what he does not know. No one knows that the Iranian government is planning to acquire nuclear weapons. If he does know, where is the evidence? And please, no more "the smoking gun will come in a form of a mushroom cloud". I've heard this before. Since proving a negative is impossible, supporters of pre-emption would always seem to have an upper hand, never mind the facts. However, such facts as the lack of intercontinental missiles (no threat to the US) in Iran, would seem to shatter the entire "threat to the US" argument. That's okay. They will say that Ahmadinejad might "give weapons to terrorists". Who cares if the IAEA is finding no evidence of the developement of nuclear weapons in Iran. This organization was ignored in 2003, and it will be ignored, again. The fact that the Israeli gvt. can "wipe Iran off the map" with nuclear weapons, is somehow getting ignored in the press. The US government refuses to offer security guarantees to the Iranian gvt. in negotiations, and it wonders why the Iranian gvt. won't stop enriching uranium. The Iranian gvt. has nothing to lose. If the Iranian gvt. were to stop enriching uranium tomorrow, nothing will change. Secretary of State Rice provided a list of grievances towards Iran, starting with the support of Hezbollah to the regime not being democratic. The refusal of the US government to provide security guarantees for the Iranian side, if it were to stop enriching uranium, suggests that this has nothing to do with enriching uranium, but everything to do with a regime change. The White House says that "regime change" is the goal. In this case, diplomacy is nothing more than a smokescreen for war.

you'd have to say that, even if a mistranslation of words took place, a mistranslation of intent did not.  The Iranian President makes it very clear that he does not believe Israel has the right to exist.

are not miracles.  The point of this resolution is to put pressure on the UN -and given that the UN Secretary-General was in DC yesterday to talk about this, and other international matters, would indicate that it is doing something. 

I wonder what alternative would produce better results...

This is a meaningless nothing. Iran is no more afraid of this than of a dirty look. This is nothing more than a way for spineless left wing ostriches to bury heir heads in the sand after saying they "did something". Impeach Bush? Only if the reason is that he violated his oath by refusing to close the border with Mexico and stop the invasion occurring there. If that were the reason I would say yes!

1. We could destroy the entire Iranian navy in 4 hours.

2. We could cut off 50% the Iranian gasoline supply by closing one pipeline from the gulf.

3. We could impose MEANINGFUL sanctions instead of the pretend ones currently in effect.

This resolution has less meaning than used toilet paper. 

Impeach Bush? Only if the reason is that he violated his oath by refusing to close the border with Mexico and stop the invasion occurring there. If that were the reason I would say yes!

If you read the article, the actual translation implies "regime change", not an actual destruction of Israel. This is no different than having the US or the Israeli gvt. calling for a regime change in Iran (which they did). So what? From an enrichment of uranium (not a violation of the Nuclear Non-Prolifiration Treaty), we have politicians from Bush to Obama refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. So, we went from the Israeli and the US gvt. calling for a regime change in Iran, and the Iranian gvt. calling for a regime change in Israel, to having US politicians not ruling out the idea of nuking Iran. If someone could explain to me, how did we end up in this madness, I'll be willing to listen.

I haven't read an explanation of "why attack Iran", yet. This reminds me of a bully who picks on someone who is of a smaller size. A bully would not attack someone his/her own size. Attack Russia? Of course, not! It has nuclear weapons! What could possibly be the reason for attacking Iran? If as bill07407 is suggesting the Iranian millitary is weak, why pick a fight? Why be a bully? What is the threat to the US? Surely, most people would agree that self-defense is a legitimate defense. However, an attack against a sovereign nation (that is no threat to the US) is an act of agression. If it is wrong for one person to attack another (yes, one can be convicted of assault), then shouldn't the same rules apply to the government? And if it is okay for our goverment to invade another country, for reasons other than self-defense, then isn't it okay for someone to take an AK-47 and start shooting people randomly on a street. Again, the Iranian gvt. is currently enriching uranium. Under the Nuclear Non-Prolifiration Treaty (which the Iranian gvt. has signed), it is allowed to enrich uranium to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency found no evidence that the enrichment of uranium is anything, but for peaceful purposes. At the current level of enrichment, the enrichment cannot have a military purpose. The Iranian gvt. has no intercontinental missiles. I am still waiting for proof that the Iranian gvt. is a threat to the US. The Bush Administration refuses to guarantee the lack of invasion of Iran, if the Iranian gvt. were to stop enriching uranium. So, what incentive could the Iranian gvt. possibly have to stop enriching uranium? I do not mind our government being honest (I know that's too much too ask) about the intentions. If they had been honest, officials would have said, "Look. This cannot be resolved diplomatically. We don't care if you stop enriching uranium or not. We just believe in a "regime change". That's all". That would have been honest. But that would have begged the question. Does the government really have to invent stories of mushroom clouds (as the White House did in 2002), to scare the American people to support the conflict? The answer is, yes. At least, with a classroom bully, thousands of people do not lose their lives. At least with a classroom bully, the military isn’t forced to accept convicted felons into the military, because the Army is overstretched. At least with a classroom bully, our government doesn’t side with the same Sunni rebels in Iraq who killed thousands of Americans. I’m waiting for evidence from this government, that Iran is a threat to the US. I know that this is too much to ask. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that the US government will come up with evidence (other than the rejected by General Pace reports that the IEDs in Iraq, were sent by the Iranian gvt.) that the Iranian gvt. is a threat to the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Then, perhaps, there would be an actual debate in Congress (after all, it is Congress that declares war, under the US Constitution), and Congress would come up with a decision on whether or not the Iranian gvt. is a threat to the US.

and it presents the argument as you describe it. It is imply not intellectually honest in presenting its argument and tries to take a few words, bereft of context, to build a false case.

The argument is not over what the US or Israel or anyt other country has done. Iran is free to talk to the UN about that. The issue at hand is whether the Iranian President is promoting violence against the people of Israel. You claim he does not.

Your argument completely falls apart, though, if you go as far as looking at the Iranian President's website: The president called on the public and the Palestinian combatant groups to be vigilant and added that if they manage to overcome the new conspiracies of the world arrogant powers, the way would be paved for destruction of the Zionist regime and establishment of a national Palestinian government.

On the same day (and I believe in response to the same speech you cite) the President's website states: He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.

The controversy of translation is well documented, but the intention of the Iranian President's repeated rhetoric, and actions, cannot be misinterpreted: When combined with Iran's longstanding support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah of Lebanon, two groups that have killed numerous Israelis, and Mr. Ahmadinejad's refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust, it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.

you are the only one who is talking about attacking Iran.  The resolution that was passed does not even mention that as a possibility.

Destroy the Navy? Cut gasoline suppy?  That would be an overt act of war.

 What sanctions would be more meaningful?  

More to the point, can you name the ones in place?

Probably not.

To anyone who thinks that this resolution wouldn't move the US gvt. closer to war, might want to read the following article from Seymour Hersh: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh Thank you for the update on more recent comments from Ahmadinejad. So, the Israeli gvt. has a right to be concerned. What does this have to do with the US? I am waiting for some sort of evidence that Iran is a threat to the US. If not, why is the US government funding covert operations to destabilize the Iranian gvt? If the Iranian gvt. is not a threat, then these activities must cease. Congress hasn't declared war, and so these activities are illegal (unconstitutional).

What Dr Paul had to say June 20, 2007 Madam Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. 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 US 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 US 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 US foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.

When Secretary of State Gates was asked about attacking Iran, his response was a definite "no". However, going back to 2003, President Bush was also saying "no", even as he was prepared to give green light to an attack. When President Bush orders ships to be sent closer to the border with Iran, officially to "protect" Persian Gulf nations (Are they about to be attacked by the Iranian gvt.?), one wonders if Gates' "no" actually means no. If President Bush wasn't talking about "regime change" in Iran, and was refusing to provide security guarantees to Iran, if the Iranian gvt. were to stop enriching uranium, then I would have agreed that my comments would have been out of place. However, the government's behavior suggests that it is not being honest with the American people. President Bush should announce what the threat is (from Iran) to the US. Otherwise, he should offer security guarantees to Iran (if the Iranian gvt. were to stop enriching uranium). This would send a signal that the US government is not interested in attacking Iran. If the Israeli gvt. finds Ahmadinejad's statements provocational, let the Israel gvt. deal with it (our gvt. often prevents the Israeli gvt. to respond to attacks-Persian Gulf War I). However, this is not an issue between our gvt. and the Iranian gvt. to settle. For once, the US government should let the Israeli gvt. deal with this, however without statements from President Bush, that if the Israeli gvt. were to strike first, and the Iranian gvt. were to respond by striking Israel, that the US gvt. would respond by striking Iran. There is no defense treaty between the US and Israel. Such a response would have to be approved by Congress, through a declaration of war against Iran. At least, this would be in accordance with the Constitution.

That was a good speech by Paul.  Really... Not ruling out a nuclear strike against Iran... Are members of Congress auditioning for the role of Dr.Strangeglove? Don't they realize that nuking nuclear stations would spread the radiation across Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries? Of course, "everything" must have changed after 911... That includes using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons. Besides killing countless number of people, what kind of a moral example would this show to the World? That the US gvt. supports genocide, and that the only way to save the Muslims from annihilation, would be to attack Americans. Not only do I hope that the US government does not use nuclear weapons against Iran, I hope that it doesn't launch any attack, if Congress doesn't make a self-defense case and declares war.