Kerry says Iran making "dangerous" nuclear choice

[sabra]

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=10831391&src=rss/politicsNews

Kerry says Iran making "dangerous" nuclear choice


HYDERABAD, India (Reuters) - U.S. Senator and former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Thursday that Iran was making a dangerous choice in pushing ahead with its nuclear ambitions.

"Iran has made a dangerous and silly decision of confronting not just the U.S. government but the entire international community," Kerry told reporters in the southern Indian technology hub of Hyderabad during a visit to India.

...

Kerry said Iran could be referred to the U.N. Security Council if the crisis continued.

"If all diplomatic channels fail, we have no choice but to take the issue before the international body," Kerry, a strong proponent of nuclear non-proliferation, said.

[nolabels]

1. That's what I told Einstein back in the day, you know...................

he just wouldn't listen :shrug:

[Maggie_May]

2. Let the Saudi Arabia and other Middle East allies

deal with Iran they also have a huge interest if Iran goes nuke. United States have to learn that we cannot become the police country its going to bankrupt us.

[Zynx]

32. What Middle Eastern country has the clout to deal with Iran?

Iran is much more powerful militarily than any of them.

EDIT: I am very opposed to war with Iran, but dealing with them is quite impossible at the moment.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Dealing with them in the same way that the NeoCons "dealt with" Iraq.....

...is also not the way to go. Unfortunately, the NeoCon Junta's idea of diplomacy is to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Zynx]

116. The problem is that I doubt Iran can simply be talked out of this by

their neighbors. I am failing to see what Saudi Arabia or Kuwait could do or say to get Iran to back down.

[wordpix]

142. not that the US has any clout, either- as we've seen in Iraq...

the US can't just "shock and awe" the populace into submission, and we have no boots on the ground or money to go into Iran, either, even if that were a good idea.

Fucking * has ruined our military and treasury with his Iraq War.

[tuvor]

3. My understanding is that with their current resources

running at capacity, they wouldn't be able to build any nukes for at least ten years, according to a freelance journalist from just outside San Francisco, interviewed on CBC radio two days ago who's written for Mother Jones, and a couple of other well-known left-leaning print media. (Sorry, can't recall the names. New Yorker, I think was one of the others.) The only possible shorter-term concern, he said, was whether Iraq adds more centrifuges.

Which brings me to my question: What's wrong with sending inspectors in? It's not exactly an imminent threat we're talking about.

Maybe Kerry, or one of you guys, knows something I don't.

[nolabels]

10. And in layman's terms, Kerry and what ever other represent ive of.........

the US government it may be has a problem with their veracity, honesty or what ever other standings having to deal with truth. The public opinion of them in that area STINKS. Nobody should be believing what they put out without verification. The top tiers of government is trying to find some way to get out of the mess they are in and get the public back in line by whatever way possible. They would like to scare people, if thats what will work. I am not scared and also wouldn't care if the NSA is staring up my anus as a post this. They, the government needs to come clean and start doing their Freaking job, this government is just way out of line. We, the public need to hold ALL of them accountable, where ever they might hail from.

[karynnj]

24. I doubt the rest of the world has a presumption that Kerry is dishonest

Many may have no opinion - others no he called Bush on many lies.

[nolabels]

64. The shades of truth can be as wide as any spectrum you measure

Being dishonest or truthful was not in any question I had but even that too is relative.

If an ordinary smuck like me knew all the hype about Iraq was made up then how could any US Senator look any other US citizen in the face and say they believed the (made up) intelligence reports from the Bush administration. The point is they are not going to own up to any of it and it is our job as citizens to get them out of office because they won't. An enabler is as bad as the perpetrator in my book. It is that simple for me. It won't get any better till we do make that a unsafe way for them to perform their sworn duty and more than likely probably worse.

If you they can only motivate you with some fear of the boogie man from other places then they are standing on very thin ground.

I am also not worried where everybody else stands on the issue, the ugly truth of what is really going on is enough for me.

It is that simple.


Wednesday, December 07, 2005

How Many Ways Can You Tell a Lie?
I missed yesterday’s press briefing with Press Secretary Scott “The Lyin’ King” McClellan so I just looked through the transcript and found this interesting exchange on the White House’s ever-changing rationale for why we invaded Iraq.

Q: Just to be clear about something, we didn't go to Iraq to spread democracy, did we? I mean, we didn't go to Iraq to help the Iraqi people. It was initially a security issue -- just to be clear on that.

McClellan: Well, we spelled out the reasons we went to Iraq, and I would encourage you to go back and look at that. We have liberated 25 million people in Iraq, and 25 million people in Afghanistan. And spreading --

Q: But it wasn't the reason we went --

McClellan: -- spreading freedom and democracy -- well, we're not going to re-litigate the reasons why we went into Iraq. We've made very clear what the reasons were. And, no, I don't think you define them accurately by being so selective in the question.
(snip)
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2005/12/how-many-ways-can-you-tell-lie.html

[Zhade]

69. He's been dishonest with regards to Venezuela.

This can be found by perusing his own writings at his website.

So if he's dishonest about Chavez (or, if it's even possible, flagrantly un- or misinformed), why not about Iran?

There's no threat from Iran. NONE. The Iranian government is NOT suicidal, and even if they obtain nukes (in about 8-10 years), they're not about to fire them off.

I think it's "silly" of any Dem to go along with the farcical neocon notion that WE MUST STOP IRAN NOW!!!111!!!! when there's no imminent threat. It sends the wrong message.

[Mass]

25. I thought they did not want to follow what the inspectors wanted.

and that is why Europe wanted them to be referred to the UN for sanctions, but of course, some people here may know better.

This said, it is true that they will not have weapons tomorrow, but it may be easier to get them not to have weapons now by diplomatic pressure than when they have them (see North Korea and the mess it is now).

Here is what el-Baradei said yesterday, and Europe is asking for an IAEA meeting this week to deal with the issue.

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/jan/1084.html

IAEA Director el-Baradei also said in a 10 January statement that he is "seriously concerned" by Iranian moves, pointing out that the IAEA had not yet clarified the nature of Iran's nuclear program.

[oblivious]

140. Yes, the IAEA wanted them to continue to voluntarily suspend their...

...enrichment operation. But it was voluntary. Iran has a perfect right under the NPT as it stands to carry out research into uranium enrichment, as long as it is clearly for peaceful purposes. That's the purpose of having the inspectors there, carrying out snap inspections and supervising the research.

el-Baradei's concern is that before 2003, Iran's program was undeclared, so there is still suspicion about Iran's motives and therefore he considers it very important that Iran continue its voluntary suspension of research into uranium enrichment until a deal is worked out to everyone's satisfaction (obviously impossible).

[Josh999]

147. That could be a problem

"What's wrong with sending inspectors in? It's not exactly an imminent threat we're talking about."

What do we do if they refuse to allow inspectors?

[blm]

4. IOW - Pursue diplomacy or give the dictatortot the cover to start

another war.

A war that the proBush media is already trying to sell.

[TheGunslinger]

118. "dictatortot"

:rofl:

[katinmn]

5. Maybe Israel should be hauled before the SC for threatening to nuke Iran

Currently scheduled for March, I believe.

Just google it.

[gulfcoastliberal]

138. The way they "nuked " Saddams Osirak reactor?

The Israeli's won't ever be be the first to launch a nuclear attack. Ever. Their country would collapse.

Conventional bombing strikes, perhaps. And they way the madman leader of Iran is talking about exterminating Israel, I's ay their damned within their rights to stop them from developing a bomb.

[wordpix]

143. I agree, gulfcoast

[ECH1969]

6. How much do you want to bet

Kerry and almost the same group of other dems in the Senate that voted for Iraq War Resolution are going to support the Iran War Resolution.

[leesa]

8. No doubt in my mind, this is what they have wanted all along.

Their goal is to steal the oil and prop up Israel as long as possible. We don't give Israel billions of free loans annually for no reason.

[mallard]

119. Re: a war with Iran...

... would be a big hit with our Shi'ite friends in Iraq.

[TayTay]

9. There won't be one.

Because Bush knows he would lose it. Instead, the Bushies are going to claim they have the authority already to bomb Iran.

We don't need no steenkin Congressional authority. We do whatever we want.

[ECH1969]

11. So Hillary would vote against an Iran War Resolution?

Would Biden vote against it? How about Kerry? How about Lieberman or the Red State Senators.

Bush has just about all the Republicans in the bag.

[Zhade]

71. Well, considering Congress voted away their war-making powers, yeah.

You're right.

[joeunderdog]

23. Is that MY senator your talking about?

I wouldn't know. I haven't seen him. Does he still work in Mass?

[rox63]

62. Actually...

He was all over MA at various events for about 2 weeks before he left on this trip.

[IndianaGreen]

126. They disagree with Bush on tactics, not on goals

It would be interesting to see if the same cast of characters that voted for IWR will vote for the I2WR.

Is anyone concerned about how the Shias in Iraq will respond to an attack on Iran?

[Old and In the Way]

7. A pre-emptive strike against US/Israel bi-lateral action?

No doubt Iranian nuke capabilities under a RW fundie government in the ME, on the other side, is a worrisome addition to a region that is increasingly unstable. But, if there is action to be taken, it has to be a UN driven, not a US driven decision.

Who doesn't think that as the domestic noose tightens around the collective necks of the Republican Syndicate, that they will not readily take us all through a scortched earth scenario? Where they'd even start WW3 if it would keep them all from facing justice? If you were guilty of treason and responsible for the 10,000 Americans who have died because you failed your oath of Office....what would you do to avoid your day of reckoning?

[stepnw1f]

12. Here Comes the DRAFT

I would rather die than sacrifice my life for some evil agenda a bunch of Neo Nuts have devised out of thin air.

[KittyWampus]

28. No draft. Bombing doesn't require a draft & Mercenaries fight for $

[Dharma_Bum]

37. Your right ...

... but it does require 50,000 troops for the aftermath.
Not to mention at least four years to 'start' rebuilding the country and training the police and military so they don't get invaded by Syria and Turkey ... LOL

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. If the NeoCon Junta intends to control Iran militarily, they will have....

...to put troops on the ground.

If they don't put troops on the ground, they will have to commit to a massive bombing campaign and risk degrading one more source of Middle Eastern oil.

My fear is that this group of rightwing madmen will take this opportunity to prove to the world that they are willing to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive stike.

[Dharma_Bum]

53. very true assumption ...

[KittyWampus]

54. IMO, they will escalate bombing in Iraq (killing many more civilians)

and use troops in Iran... spreading them thin, suppliment with mercenaries.

They don't think that far ahead.

[bearfan454]

136. I could be wrong, but I believe that

they won't use nukes because it would make the oil radioactive.

[Zhade]

72. And when Iran decides to attack U.S. soldiers in Iraq?

Which they would be justified in doing after our military attacked them?

[JVS]

173. You know, I've seen that claim so much in the last 3 years and it...

hasn't happened. I think the boy is calling wolf when I hear it now.

[The Stranger]

13. His election stolen by the BFEE, and all he can do is sing their tune.

Something comes to mind about domestic spying -- oh nevermind.

[karynnj]

18. He is saying take it to the UN - which is HIS own tune

I would assume that he has said that he does not trust Bush, he will not trust Bush.

Iran is a problem - for Kerry to ignore that would be wrong. I assume that Kerry (who is likely perceived as the leader of the opposition overseas) to say this is good in that it is a call for them to move away from the crisis that is being created.

Nothing he has said on this says to bomb or attack Iran. If you go back to the Rice confirmations, he was the one who was forcing Dr Rice on the record of what we were doing with regards to Iran. (using the Seymour Hersh article to do so)

[The Stranger]

38. Going to the UN is wholly perfunctory.

Wake up -- The Neocons hate the UN. They only want to use it to get everybody sliding down the road.

Then, with a good shove, in the form of a Gulf of Tonkin like charade, will force imbecile Kerry to sign on for some kind of military action.

Then they will use his words to nail him to the wall any time anyone questions why the world is at war and Chimp and the Neocons started it.

Meanwhile, the true crisis is the transformation of the U.S. government into a totalitarian regime that spies and imprisons its citizens without any semblance of law.

If Kerry were worth his weight in dogshit, he would be making it a point to find out why Bush's NSA has broken the law hundreds of thousands of times, with Bush's approval on the record.

[Zhade]

74. Please explain how Iran is a problem.

Then explain how Israel's having nukes they refuse to allow to be inspected isn't a problem.

I'm really tired of this double standard with regards to Israel's own violations of the NPT.

[fujiyama]

165. I don't believe Israel ever signed the NPT

so I don't see how it even matters if they are in violation of it.

On the other hand, if you are opinting to the doublestandard that Israel is the only nation in the middle East with nukes and wihes to remain so, then you have a good point. Israel is naive and foolish if it wants to believe that it can be only kid on the block with the big toys. If Israel wants others in the region to give up nukes, it should realize that it having them is a reason for them wanting it. Though in all honesty, I trust Israel's government more with them as it is a civilian elected government. Iran's is supposedly 'elected', but reform minded candidates are frequently assassinated by the ruling mullahs.

[maryallen]

145. It stinks to high heaven, doesn't it?

Really pulling the party together, John Boy!

[Village Idiot]

14. Crisis? What Crisis?

I thought that the IAEA gave Iran the authority to begin enrichment processes for peaceful nuclear energy?

Why would this be referred to the Security Council, if it is all above board?

I am not sure I understand, but for the past two weeks, it appears that a backstory is being prepared by the US and Israelis - that Iran is in contravention of UN and IAEA regulations, should face sanctions, etc...

Interesting, but didn't Iran REFUSE to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation agreement? Didn't Israel and Pakistan sign it and then go ahead and develop nuclear weapons? Why target a nation that does NOT contravene the NNPA, rather than going after the two main countries that we KNOW have already broken the treaty? Politics, politics, politics...energy, energy, energy...

What a world...

[Zhade]

76. Indeed!

NT!

[bpilgrim]

15. this double standard of who can have nuclear technology is nuts

sounds like a convenient pretext for imperial war to me.

more...
http://GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[Amonester]

16. Striking resemblance...

No... Frightening resemblance...

Same DNA trees. (Both love/d "using" dogs.)

The Hague Awaits.

[Little Star]

19. Oh my,

they really look alike.

[Gregorian]

17. One more nail in the Democratic coffin. Bye bye Kerry.

I will not vote for you, even if you're nominated.

This is it. I'm voting my conscience next time.

You're out, pal! Fuck you.

[karynnj]

20. Kerry did not say to take military action

In the campaign, Kerry was in line with the Europeen effort to negotiate with Iran to keep them in line. Now, when things have gotten worse, he calls for going to the UN. What would you want a leader to do? Ignore it?

Also, I would prefer to here what he says when he returns to America. Judging from his questioning of Rice, he is NOT in line with their positions. His comment may be as strong as a high governmental offical should make when he is not the President when he is in a foreign country on official business (he is there as Senator).

[maryallen]

146. Kerry is enabling the hell out of Bush's despicable behavior!

[earth mom]

21. Word.

Kerry is looking way too much like Bush these days! :grr:

[karynnj]

22. Sorry, but you seriously need glasses

Kerry:
- diplomatic channels
- refer to UN

Bush
- suggestions he does't need Congressional approval
- reluctantly in Europeen efforts to resolve problem - remember in the debates that he had argued aginst the US working with the other countries.

Note that one prefers diplomacy, the other intimidation

[Mass]

27. May be some people here are opposed to diplomacy?

I am not sure, but they may think that people should not oppose to Iran having nuclear weapons (for my part, I am very much against ANY country having nuclear weapons, but who knows??).

[earth mom]

66. I'm wearing my glasses and what I'm seeing is CRYSTAL CLEAR:

1. Kerry does NOT want to get out of Iraq NOW-IF EVER!
2. Kerry is pro Israel-ELECTED OFFICIALS NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THIS COUNTRY FIRST!
3. Kerry is warning Iran about Nuclear Weapons-JUST ANOTHER U.S. BULLY!

and so on and so forth. Sounds and looks way too much like Bush IMNSHO! :grr:

Oh and let's not forget how Kerry has done little about the OBVIOUS stolen election of '04! :mad:

Kerry is proving that he's one of "THEM" all right! :puke:

[karynnj]

68. Printing lies in bold and capitalizing them doesn't make them any truer

1. Kerry would already be moving troops out if he won. Kerry spoke in 2003 that America's greatness was that we didn't want an empire - no PNAC here.

2. Kerry does care about the US first. From his own words, he is a genuine patriot who cares about the values that America was built on. He is very committed to international diplomacy. He has likely tried to uderstand the arab customs, religion and values as much as any politician.

3. If Iran continues on its path, Bush will likely attack. Warning them not to provoke is not a bad idea. (This is NOT a good regime.) Good luck finding a politician who will defend this regime.

obvious does not equal provable even when written in caps.

Who exactly do you support?

[Zhade]

78. "Kerry would already be moving troops out if he won."

There is, of course, absolutely NO way for you to know if this is a true statement, since he didn't get to take office.


"Warning them not to provoke is not a bad idea. (This is NOT a good regime.) Good luck finding a politician who will defend this regime."

So Kerry is pushing the meme that the United States has the right to decide who can and can't have nuclear technology? What the fuck gives us that right?

[earth mom]

112. Kerry has lied, not me.

So don't call ME the liar! :eyes:

FYI-Once upon a time I supported Kerry....but now that I know the TRUTH about him...

NO WAY IN HELL!

Here's something to burst your bubble in thinking Kerry would get us out Iraq:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/kerr-f01.shtml

(The DU advanced search is unavailable right now, so I can't locate the thread I was thinking of in my previous post)

IMO, That article is pretty damning of Kerry!

And now Kerry is going off on Iran!!! :wtf:

So.....you support Kerry?! Which must mean you support more war!

Sorry, but I'm just not down for more war!

[karynnj]

123. That is a World Socialist article on the MTP interview Kerry did

in early 2005. There are many people here who saw the primary source itself Including me. This article makes completely unwarranted conclusions. At that time, Kerry and Kennedy both said that they were very close to each others positions - Kerry didn't want to set a withdrawal date - but his process was one to withdraw. A key element was no permanent bases. Kennedy was the first politician to talk withdrawal.

Your article lies, not Kerry. In the MTP interview, Kerry did answer the 2 questions as stated, but then as the article neglects to say Kerry spoke about how his process and Kennedy's were quite close. (A few weeks later, Russert did the same thing with Kennedy - who echoed Kerry's comment that they were not that far apart and the difference was "process" more than anything else. Given Kerry's and Kennedy's full comments - this article is absolutely untrue.

Kerry in Oct 2005 - as the situation worsened, gave a speech that was an exit plan that would have the US out in a year to 15 months. Feingold, who in August, 2005 called for a target date for withdrawal, in November when the Democrats were working on their amendments listed Kennedy, Levin, Byrd(?) and Kerry as the Senators who with him were most on the side of withdrawal.

Why you think that a nearly year old article from a questionable source that talks about a MTP that meny of us saw with our own eyes is beyond me. You should check MTP, not a biased writer with an agenda's blatant distortion of it.

[earth mom]

125. As I stated, I could not search for the DU thread I was thinking of.

And the link I provided was close to the point I was trying to make. I have no idea which sites are questionable or not-is there a list somewhere?

I'd say that I've more than proven that Kerry would have stayed in Iraq. As well, it is notable that the MTP interview was done soon after the 04 election and certainly enough to show that he lied before the election.

Last but not least, Kerry very recently voted to STAY in Iraq.

So how much more proof do you need?

Though...feel free to stay in denial about Kerrys' "misrepresentation of the truth" if you wish. :shrug:

[karynnj]

127. He did not vote to stay in Iraq

What vote would that be? Kerry voted for the Democratic amendment (I think Levin was the sponsor) that said we need to change course. He was one of the few Democrats not to vote for the Republican version - I think Warner was the sponsor (along with Kennedy) because it had less substance than the vague Democratic one did - and he saw it as cover.)

Kerry's own exit plan was written as a bill and was introduced on the Senate floor (as was Feingold's to get a target date). As of now these are the only ones at this state.

Kerry did not lie -
What Kerry said in Sept, 2004 at NYU:
To get out-
- We need to quickly train Iraqis to take over security
- We need some progress of reconstruction using Iraqis
- We need to have the international organizations and those in the area help the Iraqis develop a political solution
- The Iraqis need elections

On MTP, he said the same thing - only the first election was held then
On the other points, he said that very few Iraqis were trained and that Jordan, Eqypt, Germany and France had all told him that they could train them in their country - but the US refused.

Kerry said the political work was progressing very slowly and that the reconstruction was not working.

He then re-iterated the same things as needing to be done.

As the on ground situation changed, Kerry has altered his plan
in July 2005
and in Oct 2005.

The consistent thing in all - is that they don't have permanent bases.

[Catrina]

149. Where do we get off 'training Iraqis'? The Iraqis are not stupid and dumb

(despite the neocon attempt to paint them that way). They've had armies, very effective armies, long before we got there. In fact, they're doing a pretty good job fighting for themselves right now, from what I can see. This war was supposed to take weeks, as I recall. It seems to me that they will train their own army when we get out of there. Of course they will use it to protect their oil, which is why we make up these pretenses for not leaving.

How dare we tell other countries what weapons they can have and not have? Does Kerry realize that the Iranians were moving towards a more moderate government before Bush began slaughtering the Iraqi people, using napalm and talking openly about using tactical nukes on that country?

Back when all this began, most intelligent people predicted that Bush's rabid, aggressive language, his 'axis of evil' and other warmongering talk, the PNACers own writings on what their plans were for the ME, would drive any sane country to arm themselves and with nuclear weapons in order to defend itself from what really is an imminent threat to their security, when necessary.

I do not blame them, or any other country, for doing so. They have been threatened consistently by this fascist administration and if I were in their place, I wouldn't wait ten years if possible, I would be armed to the teeth knowing that Bush and his neocon warmongers had their eyes on my country from right next door.

Bush and all those who supported this tragic folly in Iraq practically guarnanteed that countries now frightened of the warmongering US, would move to arm themselves.

Maybe Kerry should direct his advice to Bush. It is he who is the cause of all this. Have the Iranians threatened this country? Did Iraq? Has Syria, next on the neocons list?

Have you ever read the neocons' own writings on what they intend to do? I bet the Iranians have.

This is deja vu. The same language coming from Bush 'Iran is a GRAVE threat' blah, blah. And Kerry backing him and the neocon lunies by jumping on the bandwagon, repeating the bullying rhetoric.

I held my nose last time. I waited to hear Kerry condemn these aggessive policies, I never heard it. I did hear him criticize (way too late) the METHODs use by Bush, but never the decision to go there. I did hear other Democrats condemn it, about 160 of them. But not Kerry.

As Michael Ledeen said 'no place deserves to be turned into a cauldron more than that REGION of the world' in response to Scowcroft's concerns about just that. 'Let's hurry it up' said the Arab-hating Ledeen. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and even Saudi Arabia are all on the agenda of these lunatics. We're seeing them move to step two now. Iraq was step one.


If Kerry thinks anyone over there is going to get the 'nuances' his supporters here are claiming we are missing (like, don't aggravate Bush, please be nice and play the way he wants you to so he won't bomb you), as if that would stop Bush, he must have already forgotten the slaughter and the torture and the theft of Iraq's resources and oil revenues after all the same games were played with Saddam.

Bush and his neocon cronies, INTEND TO INVADE Iran. So stop fooling yourself. And if Kerry is fooled, then he IS a fool. But I don't think that's it. I think he's one of them.

If he won't speak out against this country invading other countries, that means he agrees with these policies. I am sick and tired of having to try to interpret everything he says and turn it into something I WANT to hear, rather than what I have or haven't heard. He always has an interpreter here. Why is that?

It's simple, John. Either you apprvove of the neocon's vicious and cruel agenda that has already killed so many beautiful, innocent people, or you don't. Which is it? I think I know ~ just be honest and try to speak plainly. I'd rather deal with that, at least we'd know where we stood.

He was against Chavez also. Backed the Bush junta when they attacked him. I signed the petition during the election asking him to take back his statements about Chavez, but he ignored the thousands of us who wrote to him. So, if you don't mind, I will ignore him. We've been down this road before and it's looking awfully familiar ~

Iran has a population three times that of Iraq ~ how many more people are we going to let them kill?

I read from a soldier the other, that he will never stop dreaming about a severed foot he saw, with a little pink sandle on it. 'It must have been a little girl', he said. God help the Iranians, they are about to die, and for what? Kerry can't stop Bush, but at least this time, he could take a moral stand, as Sen. Byrd did, and that way he at least, won't have the blood of Iran's children on his conscience. I am so sick of all this. Better go get some air.

I was wondering yesterday when I heard the old familiar 'grave threat' talk would Americans fall for the lies all over again, and I can see the answer is 'yes' just from this thread ~ so sad!

[0007]

103. I have my glasses on also, and I think we're viewing the same

scene.

Kerry lost me over the stolen election of 04.

[TankLV]

121. Both = attack Iran. Same fart, different assholes.

The results would be the same.

Both seem to have a hard on for confrontation and war.

I don't like it one bit.

[brentspeak]

35. Didn't you already declare you would never vote for Kerry again?

(Checking the archives)

Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov-03-04 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
42. HE'LL NEVER GET MY VOTE AGAIN.


And very likely, neither will the Democratic party.

I know, I know, it's the idiot people of America who are to blame for this mess. They let Diebold do what they did. They let it get close enough...



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x954239#954332

[wisteria]

26. Kerry states a sensable course of action! I agree it needs to

be taken up with the UN if iran continues to ignore the worlds requests.

[HuffleClaw]

29. he should shut the hell up

and NOT play along with the administration's THIRD march to war. if he has any integrity left in his ken doll body, he'd EXPOSE this for what it is, a veiled attack on their ECONOMIC decisions. nuke threat my foot.

[karynnj]

31. Integrity in his "ken doll body"

Kerry has plenty of integrity. I guess it's a pretty good compliment to say a 62 year old man has a "ken doll body". It seems an awfully strange comment to make about a dignified statesman.

[Geo55]

111. Some day , be sooner than later.

If they (Iran) start seriously challenging the dollar as an oil trading instrument....
then , keep your heads down kiddies ,....the energy wars will have commenced in Earnest !!

an' it may come down to THEM telling you the truth , even....nah probably not.
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

[sandnsea]

30. Here comes the hypocritical left

For almost 4 years I've listened to nothing but all the reasons Iraq was wrong, including the fact that the real threat is IRAN. Now that Iran has upped the ante by starting nuclear program again; right on schedule, the left reverses course and Iran is as pure and innocent as Saddam Hussein. Because the left kneejerks against everything the US does and really would open itself to death before recognizing and confronting any legitimate threat against this country.

And that is the bottom line of why Democrats lose.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the NeoCon Junta....

...using the exact same propaganda gameplan against Iran as it used against Iraq.

Iran is "upping the ante" because the MSM is telling you that they are...we have no way of knowing the truth of the matter. But common sense should tell just about anyone that Iran is very far away from developing a nuclear weapon. And even if they do, are they going to commit national suicide by firing a nuke at the U. S.? Can they even reach the U. S. at all with their current state of missile technology?

[sandnsea]

40. Not my point

I've listened to what a clutz Bush is for not focusing on the real dangers, including Iran, from the left, for years. Now, when there might be a need to press the issue, suddenly the left balks. This is the country that just hung gay teens. And all we're going to get is the same kneejerk that we always get from the left, which is why they have no credibility. My point is not about whether Iran is a threat, I don't think they are. It's about the hypocrisy to politicize how dangerous Iran was when it was beneficial because it was unlikely Bush would do anything, and then to turn around and take the exact opposite view just months later.

[0007]

89. I agree with your asseccment of the MSM

Three-and-a-half years ago an exiled Iranian opposition group revealed the existence of the secret underground enrichment plant in Natanz. Within four months Washington was accusing Tehran of across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

Next, the U.N. entered the fray, accusing Tehran of breaching the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran promised the EU-3 it would suspend enrichment and then a year later, it promised to suspend the processing of raw uranium, too.

But last September the U.N.'s atomic energy agency announced Iran had resumed the first stage of nuclear processing, breaking the seal at the Isfahan plant. Today research on stage two resumed: Uranium enrichment.

It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack.

Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

[Moochy]

41. "The left"

Are you in that side ? or are you on the fence. Just askin? lots of disavowing of "the left" there.

I agree I'd be annoyed *IF* anyone is actually saying what you are claiming. "Iran is as pure and innocent" blah blah..

Sounds alot like republican BS talking points to me.

[sandnsea]

42. Absolutely disavowing the left

Never made any secret about that. I'm a Democrat, always have been. Bashing the Senator for supporting a global solution to Iran is some kind of talking point, we'll see how soon Foxnews puts out something the left can glom on to.

[Moochy]

43. That explains alot

BTW this tent is pretty big, but "completely disavowing the left" as a democrat will leave you with a bit of a headache.

[sandnsea]

44. Oh I can handle it

I want them to go to the Green Party and make it big and strong so that people can hear their views clearly. When the left thinks they're Democrats and they aren't, it only muddles the Democratic Party even further. So we end up with no left message and no Dem message. Not helpful at all. And if they had a strong, clear party, they also wouldn't get away with these kneejerk responses because they would get asked the tough questions and be held to account when they say one thing one year and another the next.

[Zhade]

82. It's a lie.

The left as it's constituted in this country - the Mother Jones and Democracy Now! types - most emphatically did NOT make the argument that the poster says was made.

Many of us (though I'm what USED to be considered 'moderate') didn't think EITHER country was a threat. Saying we did is a lie.

[sandnsea]

106. How about Sy Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

I don't hear him saying there is no problem with Iran and nuclear capabilities. I do hear him criticizing Bush for being incapable of dealing with the problem.

[Zhade]

113. What he actually says...

He shows that Europe has tried to get Iran to talks to stop the looming NEOCON threat, not the Iranian one.

He says Iran has hidden their program. And? Israel did the same thing until Vanunu's heroic actions. "Hidden" does not equate to "threat". And please note that I have repeatedly said there is no THREAT from Iran, not that their having nukes is not a problem (in my estimation, anyone having nukes is a problem).


Many Western intelligence agencies, including those of the United States, believe that Iran is at least three to five years away from a capability to independently produce nuclear warheads—although its work on a missile-delivery system is far more advanced. Iran is also widely believed by Western intelligence agencies and the I.A.E.A. to have serious technical problems with its weapons system, most notably in the production of the hexafluoride gas needed to fabricate nuclear warheads.

So, no threat, much less an immediate one, as noted even by our intelligence agencies. Unless, of course, merely possessing the technology is a threat, in which case there are a number of threatening countries that we "have to deal with".

There is no crisis. There is no threat. There is a potential problem. That's all, at this point.

[sandnsea]

117. A potential problem, exactly

Which is why Kerry called for continuing diplomacy through the UN if necessary, not bombings or invasions. Because the way Iran is going about its nuclear program is a potential problem and nuclear proliferation is a serious issue. See how that works. When you're intellectually honest, you discover there isn't that much difference between you and other honest liberal politicians.

[Zhade]

120. Of course, I never said that Kerry called for bombing or an invasion.

Which, if YOU'RE intellectually honest, you'll acknowledge.

I merely said that his reinforcement of the idea that there's a crisis is not helpful.

[karynnj]

124. Seeing that several Europeen countries and Bush are calling for it,

They thinhk there's a problem.

[Zhade]

128. "Problem" DOES NOT EQUAL CRISIS.

I never said there wasn't a (potential) problem - I said there was no crisis, no threat.

And there isn't.

[oblivious]

160. No European country has even hinted at bombing or invading.

They start coughing and backtracking even when talking about limited sanctions.

[sandnsea]

129. The paper called it a crisis

He didn't. But it doesn't really matter what he called it, if he didn't say the US is being mean and bullying Iran, it would be warmongering for those on the left.

[The Magistrate]

133. You Have Made Some Interesting Points, Ma'am

It is true that one line of attack against the venture in Iraq was that while it did not present a real danger of acquiring nuclear weapons, both North Korea and Iran did present such a danger, and any military action aimed at reducing such dangers ought to be aimed in those direction, not at Iraq.

It is also true that the present government of Iran is of such a character that it is hard to be sanguine about its being in possession of such weaponry, and the prospect of its acquiring such weaponry in a few years is not a pleasant one. It may be taken for granted that any national drive to develope nuclear energy is in fact a weapons program; since the fifties, every country that has developed such weapons has begun with supposedly "peaceful" efforts, and in every country today developing its own nuclear energy capability, there exists nationalist agitation for development of nuclear weapons from that program. If a thing can be done, it will be done.

It is indeed unfortunate when progressives and leftist allow themselves to be mousetrapped into giving the appearance, at least, of defending regimes and societies that are in fact extremely reactionary. It does leave us open to charges of hypocrisy, and it is often taken by people in our own country as indicating many of the critiques we make of our own society are not sincere.

As a matter of curiousity, Ma'am, it would be pleasant to know what your own definition of "the left" is, particularly if you do in fact view it as something seperate from and hostile to the Democratic Party. It is a commonplace of political commentary nowadays that there has been something of a rightward shift in political labeling in our society, and perhaps you mean that you still apply older norms to such matters, under which, say, support for unions and civil rights, and a disinclination to imperial adventures, were the ordinary mainstream of the central consensus. But even in those days, it was the Democratic Party that formed the left of the mainstream in our country's politics.

[sandnsea]

134. Socialist/Communist/Anarchist left

The same left that gave FDR trouble in his day. Since we now have a Green Party, I don't know why in the world they don't use that as a vehicle to deliver their message, it would be much stronger that way. It would also allow the bulk of the actual Democratic Party to unite and defeat the Lieberman wing. Right now, the common sense Democrats are being drowned out by the two extremes in our own party, not to mention the right. I don't know if anybody noticed, but we are losing the debate on Iraq again. 7,000 is not the kind of troop withdrawal and Iraq policy change that Murtha or Kerry called for. It's hard enough to draw a distinction between the Lieberman wing and the Dean/Kerry/Feingold wing; but pull in the left and it's beyond herding cats. We had an opportunity to push for military disengagement and I think Murtha and Kerry and Feingold could have bridged their disagreements. Cautious disengagement is where America is at on the issue. And now I see the same thing with Iran. The left hasn't learned anything in how mistaken they were in framing the IWR vote, calling it a vote for war played right into Bush's hands, he didn't have to live up to any of the requirements for diplomacy. That is what is happening again on Iran and if we don't have a unified voice, Bush will be able to push through anything he wants again. That's the frustration, it happens over and over. Single payer, wto, all sorts of things.

[The Magistrate]

135. Fair Enough, Ma'am

[IndianaGreen]

156. IWR was a vote for war

but don't you worry, since Bush has now declared the doctrine that he can attack any country that he sees fit without Congressional approval, a doctrine that Alito endorsed in his confirmation hearings, you can bet your sweet bippy that war on Iran is imminent. You can also bet that the same idiots that voted for IWR will not impeach Bush, or filibuster Alito, or stop the war in Iraq, or prevent the one in Iran.

Some heroes you have!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

45. Who in the so called "left" has done this? Let us know and we'll go

beat the shit out of them. :eyes:

[Moochy]

48. Just more cognitive dissonance

Just the same old line:
"Oh how I *HATE* the left but but I'm a democrat! I wish all them lefties would leave the party so we wouldnt seem like wimpy appeasers to the big bad guys in the world.. someone hold me, preferrably someoene with a cowboy hat and a nuclear football."

I remember now why DU has the ignore list. :eyes:

I'm still looking for some pro-nuclear proliferation lefties sandnsea...

[Zhade]

83. It's an untrue statement.

Not surprising, of course, from one who disavows "the left" on a website initiated for and dedicated to PROGRESSIVE politics.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

114. Well you know, that left is just so scawy. n/t

[Zhade]

115. I know I'M shaking in my boots.

I mean, yeah, the AUTHORITARIAN left sucks, but that's hardly representative of the entirety of leftist thought.

[Psephos]

153. I'd rather have someone disavow the left than be subject to forum police

Opposing points of view I can deal with. Someone telling me they're in charge of deciding who's a "proper" progressive I can't.

Every ideology has its enforcers.

Peace

[endarkenment]

55. uh, bullshit?

I really do not recall arguments that we should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq. I could be wrong, but that was certainly not one of my top ten reasons why invading Iraq was both Stupid and Illegal.

[Moochy]

70. But the soccer games?

who will protect our soccer games from nuclear strikes?

[sandnsea]

75. See #73

I said we should invade Iran???

You didn't hear people on the left say we invaded Iraq and let the Iranian and N Korean threats compound?? Wow. Hypocrisy and denial, I guess they go hand in hand.

[High Plains]

56. Iran is a legitmate threat against this country?

[sandnsea]

73. They were last year,

Bush was a miserable failure because he was focusing on Iraq while Iran and N Korea were developing into nuclear threats. If I heard it once, I heard it 50,000 times. Now, it's no longer true.

I'm not saying it is or it isn't. I am saying it's hypocritical to say we were ignoring the real threat, Iran, last year; and then saying Iran is no threat, this year. It's an ideological kneejerk, not an opinion based on fact.

[Buck Rabbit]

92. I saw what you saw but not from "the left".

I heard that we should be going after Iran instead of Iraq from the hawkish warrior Dems. The ones who support the warrin' on terror, but criticized Bush for how he was doing it, not that he was doing it.

Wasn't that really Kerry's election message, not that the war was wrong but that he would have fought it better. Not sure on that, his message was confusing.

From that perspective I don't see the hyprocracy. The hawkish Demos are still with their theme it should have been Iran, and the left who were screaming stop him before he attacks Iran next are still screaming the same thing.

There was thread after thread from "the left" last year apalled by the prospect of Bush using his "election capital" to attack Iran. As a group I believe you'd have found few supporters for a preemptive strike on Iran from the "bordline greenies" last year.

[sandnsea]

95. Not true

But I'm not surprised. I heard people from Arianna to Franken to Boxer talking about the failure in dealing with Iran. Which has nothing to do with supporting a preemptive strike, it has to do with diplomacy in dealing with Iran which is all that the OP on Kerry states. But now the left wants to deny that they ever pointed to the Iranian threat as an example of Bush's failed presidency and are going to concoct a complete fairy tale on the peaceful Iranian society. I don't know why the left is incapable of separating those who seek diplomatic solutions from those who seek military solutions, but they are.

[Moochy]

97. Not suprised?

Neither am I at your continous contrarian and divisive posts, welcome *BACK* to ignore.

[Moochy]

94. Facts are that the "threat" from Iran is not real

The Facts are that you are playing into this warmongering administration and the right's lies. Do some research, read up, rather than displaying kneejerk gullibility and buying into the spin.

[sandnsea]

96. I'm not arguing that

I'm suggesting that the left look in the mirror because it wasn't so long ago they were using the threat of Iran as part of their argument against attacking Iraq.

[seeminer21]

185. Really?

Do you really think a nuclear armed Iran is NO threat us? It seems like most world leaders would disagree with you. Just because Iraq wasn't a true threat to us, doesn't mean that from now on, there are NO threats in the world except the current U.S. administration. Just being realistic, here.

[High Plains]

131. I never said Iran was a real threat, or North Korea, for that matter

Maybe some "responsible" Democrats were saying that.

I say calling any of those countries threats to the US is like the wolf calling the terrier a threat.

[Zhade]

81. It wasn't the entire "left" that bought into the "Iran is the real threat"

bullshit.

Maybe some did, but not all, not by any credible stretch of the imagination.

Your stating that the left as a whole made that argument is intellectually dishonest.

[sandnsea]

102. That's fine

But there was a large vocal contingent that used Iran's nuclear situation to augment their claims against Bush's incompetence. I'm not saying everybody in any given group thinks exactly the same, or that they were wrong on Bush's incompetence, or that they supported attacking Iran; but I am saying to pretend there's no threat at all now is "intellectually dishonest".

[Zhade]

104. Some of us aren't pretending.

There IS no threat. I never saw one, and those who did or do are misiniformed or war-happy to begin with.

[bpilgrim]

108. that sounds just like the rw talking points

did you come up with them all by yourself :shrug:

peace

[Tiggeroshii]

148. The argument wasn't we should invade Iran

The argument was that invading every country that could potentially be a threat to us would be both impossible and stupid on any diplomatic perspective. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria as well as a large number of other third world countries all had vicious dictators that were far more of a threat to their people and us than Saddam but we don't go invading them -we negotiated with them. Stretching ourselves so thin as we are beginning to do would diminish our hopes of remaining this world power we've flaunted and abused for so long.

[IndianaGreen]

157. Do you want our troops in Iraq to be attacked by the Shias?

That's exactly how the Shias throughout the world will react if the US attacks Iran.

Destroying Iraq wasn't enough of a high for the DLC, now we need to bomb and invade another country. Tell me, what's the difference between the US and Imperial Japan?

[Darranar]

158. Right. We just hate America.

After all, everyone knows that Iran's military budget is far greater than that of the US, and if it acquired nukes it would pose an immense threat to that law-abiding, respectful member of the international community, which of course does not itself have one of the world's largest supplies of nuclear weaponry.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. Dumb comment, Senator Kerry. Real dumb comment.

[liberalpragmatist]

47. Why?

Sorry, I can't understand the outrage at this comment. He never says anywhere that he believes in launching a war on Iran. He is talking about referring Iran to the UN Security Council. And it's not just the U.S. that is worried about Iran but all of Europe, Israel, and even many of the other Middle Eastern countries.

I guess people just take any criticism of Iran or another Middle Eastern country as a buildup to war.

[Zhade]

84. For me, it's that he's aiding in the perception of a crisis.

There's no crises. Even ElBaradei stated that Iran would only have nukes IN A NUMBER OF YEARS and only IF they keep prcoessing AT THE SAME RATE.

There's no crisis. Kerry's words don't help underline that fact.

[bpilgrim]

109. precedent

that's what scares me.

if we suspect any country but the ones we approve is getting a nuclear weapon we can either starve their people to death and if that doesn't satisfy us invade them.

surely that is a legitimate concern and not some 'left-wing' concern.

peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

167. Kerry is playing the NeoCon game by saying what he stated...

...publicly. Additionally, this is part of the same propaganda strategy The NeoCon Junta used in their buildup for the invasion/occupation of Iraq. IMHO, it's unfortunate that most people don't understand what's happening...again.

We have also received reports that U. S. diplomats are currently telling countries in Europe and other places that the U. S. intends to take military action against Iran and Syria very soon. What do you believe that means?

Seymour Hersh reported some time ago that U. S. Special Forces were already inside Iran. About 6-9 months before the attack on Iraq, U. S. Special Forces were also inside that country. What do you believe that means?

Outside of Israel, what other country besides the U. S. actually believes that Iran has, or is currently working on nuclear weapons? How many countries, including Israel and the U. S., are stating publicly that Iran currently has nuclear weapons or will develop them soon?

The writing's on the wall...it would take a really blind person not to see those 6-foot tall letters.

[wisteria]

50. I'll ask it to, why!! And, what do you think we should do about Iran? n/t

[Zhade]

85. Why do you think something NEEDS to be done?

And why do you think WE'RE the ones to decide what to do, if anything?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

168. By your question is it safe to assume that you believe....

...that attacking Iran is okay as far as you're concerned?

You asked the question...what do YOU think we ought to do about Iran, a country that is almost three times larger than Iraq, both in population and land area?

Better yet, what do you believe the NeoCons will do, based on their previous track record?

[tatertop]

65. To whom is he pandering by touting this neocon false casis belli?

The neocons?
The American dummy voters?
And why?

What a fool.

[theboss]

46. Isn't this an issue we can run on?

Iraq was never a threat; Iran is. And now we can't deal with Iran properly because we are stuck in Iraq.

If Iraq had never happened, and Iran was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons, I could support any and all action against them short of a nuclear attack.

Let's see:
1. Actually attacked Americans? Iran, yes. Iraq, no.
2. Support of terrorists? Iran, yes. Iraq, maybe.
3. Weapons of mass destruction? Iran, yes. Iraq, no.
4. Country that could actually be converted into something resembling a democracy? Iran, yes. Iraq, no.

[Zhade]

86. How is Iran a threat to us?

I'd love it if just ONE of you hawks would answer that question - bonus points if it's done honestly.

[theboss]

139. I'm a hawk?

The premise of "Terrorist organization + rogue state with nuclear weapons = threat" is not faulty. It's the Administration's application of that forumal that was.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

170. Do you believe Iran is a "terrorist organization" because .....

...you were told to believe that by the captive mainstream media?

Do you believe Iran is a "rogue nation" because you were told to believe that by the captive mainstream media?

Do you believe Iran has "nuclear weapons" because you were told to believe that by the captive mainstream media?

One more thing...the NeoCon Junta is a dictatorship, not an "Administration" of any kind. Calling them an "Administration" horribly cheapens the word.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

169. Oh, my............

...you stated the following:

"Let's see:

1. Actually attacked Americans? Iran, yes. Iraq, no.
2. Support of terrorists? Iran, yes. Iraq, maybe.
3. Weapons of mass destruction? Iran, yes. Iraq, no.
4. Country that could actually be converted into something resembling a democracy? Iran, yes. Iraq, no."

"1. Actually attacked Americans? Iran, no. Iraq, no."

When do you believe Iran attacked Americans? Was it when they kicked out the Shah? Was it when they took over the U. S. Embassy? When have they attacked the U. S. since then? What am I missing here?

"2a. Support of terrorists? Iran, yes."

And you believe this because you've been told to believe it by the captive mainstream media?

"2b. Support of terrorists? Iraq, maybe."

Maybe what, exactly? Where's the connection to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden? The only people that I know who still believe Iraq has dealt with terrorists are extreme rightwingers.

"3. Weapons of mass destruction? Iran, yes. Iraq, no."

When did Iran develop these mysterious weapons of mass destruction? Where are they?

"4. Country that could actually be converted into something resembling a democracy? Iran, yes. Iraq, no."

How can Iran be converted to a Democracy when they've never been one? That same question was asked about Iraq, and look where they are now. Face the facts...the countries in the Middle East are structured both by religion and culture to never become a Democracy of any kind.

[plasticsundance]

49. Kerry ... Iran is going nuclear

Get over it. Iran is flipping the US and Europe the finger. Iran is also going to start trading oil on the euro bourse. Get over it. This tough guy talk is the last saber rattles of a declining empire (i.e. US) and its dreams of hegemony.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Thursday it was not worried about being referred to the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear programme, a senior official said.

"We are not worried about our nuclear case to be sent to the Security Council," Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told state television.

The European Union's three biggest powers said on Thursday that talks with Iran had reached a dead end and agreed it should be hauled before the Security Council.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-12T174628Z_01_EIC262319_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-REACTION.xml&archived=False">CORRECTED: Iran says not worried at Security Council referral

It's not about what the left or right think. It's what Iran thinks. Sheesh ... could Americans be any more egocentric than they already are?

[wisteria]

51. So, you don't think Iran is a threat and means to harm us if they could?

[High Plains]

57. No, I don't think Iran is a threat to the United States.

Why do you think it is?

[Buck Rabbit]

61. Because they hate us for our freedom?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Zhade]

88. *SNORT*

You'd think that's the response some of these posters are holding back!

[plasticsundance]

59. If we keep fucking around in their neighborhood ...

Yeah ... they might want to harm us. Some might even say that it is they that would be acting in self defense.

I suggest you read "All the Shah's Men: an American Coup and the roots of Middle East Terror."

All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror


With that said, you miss the point of my post. The US will do anything in its pursuit of hegemony, but it will nevertheless lose. The rest of the world will not stop developing just because a bunch of egocentric Americans live in fear.

[Zhade]

90. Not only was the point missed, the point about egocentrism was made.

I truly don't understand why people can't see through the fog of nationalism to realize that Iran really doesn't care that much about us, except with regards to keeping us at bay.

Hell, Iran is clearly WAY more concerned with Israel, and even with that the Iranian government is not suicidal enough to fire off a nuke in their own backyard.

THERE IS NO CRISIS. I wish people would understand that. Yeah, we don't want more nukes in the world, but it's not like Ahmadinejad is hovering over the Big Red Shiny Candy-Like Button marked "DESTROY ISRAEL", tapping his foot impatiently for the YEARS it'll take to even make the nukes he allegedly wants to allegedly attack anyone.

Sheesh!

[plasticsundance]

137. Iran plays the same game as the Bush Administration

Iran won't be stupid enough to attack Israel. Ahmadinejad plays the Israel card to make sure that there is an enemy in his people's mind to keep him and his minions in power. The US attacked Iraq to ensure that the US has a presence in the ME. With this accomplished, the Administration thinks that there's more bite in their saber rattlings.

Look at where the US has stationed its troops since the arrival of Chimpy-in-Chief on the scene. You can see that there's a move to establish a hegemony that can provide quick strikes to promote and consolidate US interests.

Have you read the following book?

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

The Bush Administration's plan has always been for our troops in uniform to stay a great while in the ME. In their mind's eye, they have not failed in Iraq. These people are social paths with no regard for human life. Shit ... they have no regard for life at all. This might be off topic, but it demostrates the mentality of these monsters:

Monday's hunting trip to Pennsylvania by Vice President Dick Cheney in which he reportedly shot more than 70 stocked pheasants and an unknown number of mallard ducks at an exclusive private club places a spotlight on an increasingly popular and deplorable form of hunting, in which birds are pen-reared and released to be shot in large numbers by patrons. The ethics of these hunts are called into question by rank-and-file sportsmen, who hunt animals in their native habitat and do not shoot confined or pen-raised animals that cannot escape.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported today that 500 farm-raised pheasants were released yesterday morning at the Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township for the benefit of Cheney's 10-person hunting party. The group killed at least 417 of the birds, illustrating the unsporting nature of canned hunts. The party also shot an unknown number of captive mallards in the afternoon.

Humane Society Statement

They just don't give a damn.

[endarkenment]

60. Correct.

Iran is not a threat. Iran with a modest nuclear capability, which is all it could afford to develop would also not be a threat to us.

On the other hand we threaten Iran on a weekly basis, and we have demonstrated exactly what happens to nations we dislike that do not have a credible deterrent to our military forces.

[Zhade]

91. We've demonstrated that IN IRAN.

We overthrew their democratically-elected government in the 50s, and I find Iran's past decades of restraint remarkable.

If only WE could learn to bluster and NOT attack!

[Zhade]

87. Good points.

It's not all about us - and with regards to a threat, there's no "there" there.

[bpilgrim]

110. it's not only iran...

but america obviously has a big say in the matter...


more...
http://GLobalFreePress.com

peace

[LibertyorDeath]

130. "could Americans be any more egocentric than they already are?"

No

[lovuian]

52. Kerry is trying to diplomatically handle this

its a tough situation!!! Wheres Bush>>> at a fundraiser!!!

[endarkenment]

63. there is no crisis.

There is no tough situation that needs to be handled. You've bought into the bullshit. The best explanation of this phony crisis is that Iran may switch from dollars to euros for selling oil.

[endarkenment]

58. Kerry, in nuclear violator India,

informally representing aggressive nuclear megapower, USA, warns Iran that seeking to provide a deterent to our imperial ambitions in the middle east is a dangerous and silly path.

Hypocrits. Enablers. Fools.

Iran has the right to defend itself. The nuclear proliferation treaty was effectively abolished by our invasion of Iraq AFTER demanding that Iraq comply with a new weapons inspection program and after Iraq had in fact complied with that program. Every nation threatened by the USA took note of what happened in march of 2003.

[oblivious]

67. Iran is now handling nuclear development as all countries should.

Since it declared its program in 2003 it has guaranteed it is for peaceful purposes only. It has invited the IAEA to supervise its activities to guarantee this. It has followed the rules and even made additional voluntary concessions.

Denying Iran to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes according to NPT rules will send a message to the the rest of the world that the solution is to do what N Korea has done -- forget the NPT, work secretly as Iran did in the 80s and 90s and develop weaponised nukes, not just peaceful nuclear energy as Iran is doing.

Iran should not be punished for following the rules.

[Zhade]

93. Iraq was punished for following the rules.

It's worth noting, however, that the United Nations IN NO WAY legitimized that war crime.

Clearly, the UN knew there was no reason to punish Iraq. If this gets to the UNSC, I predict the same results - no UN support for attacking Iran.

[oblivious]

98. I'm just worried that the US will get a "serious consequences" clause.

Telling everyone on the SC all it means is 'possible sanctions', but later turning it into permission for an attack as they did with a few Iraq 'serious consequences' resolutions (even though the Iraq resolutions turned out to be unjustified).

[Zhade]

101. I don't think the UN is that stupid...

...especially after the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Well, I HOPE it's not that stupid.

[fujiyama]

166. The UN is extremely stupid

The member states are as Kennedy called them, are the coalition of the bribed and coerced.

It's easy to get a bunch of dirt poor nations to vote your way when you offer them billions in aid and debt relief.

[oblivious]

182. Sadly, I agree. Though I might make it "bullied" rather than "coerced".

I guess even in its decline, the US is still pretty hard to stand up to.

[sandnsea]

132. They broke IAEA seals

which is part of what the current situation is all about. Not to mention their comments about Israel and Jews.

In any event, Kerry supported a process where Iran could develop nuclear power, but it didn't get alot of attention last year cuz everybody was so confused about his warmongering and stay the course plan on Iraq and all.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040902-020948-9531r.htm

[oblivious]

159. The seals were a voluntary good-faith gesture by Iran.

They would still have been NPT-compliant without them. They gave the EU-3 over 18 months to come up with a reasonable offer to discontinue uranium enrichment research (which is legal under the NPT as long as it is clearly for peaceful purposes). The EU and US offered almost nothing - an offer to end the ban on civilian aricraft parts and maybe support for WTO entry. and Russia offered to do Iran's uranium enrichment for them. Why would Iran do that when the NPT allows them to enrich their own uranium.

Then there were the threats -- from the US and Israel to attack and from the US and EU-3 to get the IAEA to refer Iran to the Security Council. For what? Complying with the NPT?

So Iran said ok we'll remove the voluntary seals and restart our research. They invited the IAEA inspectors to supervise the seals being removed and all subsequent research.

Everything is legal. The IAEA is supervising the nuclear program and has not found any violations or indications that there is any research into nuclear weapons.

[IndianaGreen]

161. You would justify an American holocaust on Iran based only

on the Holocaust denials of Iran's President? There is something sick and twisted with that type of thinking.

Ab American attack on Iran will do little damage to Iran, but it will destroy the West, and put us all at risk of retaliation by Shias.

[Zhade]

164. WASHINGTON TIMES?

:rofl:

Wow, that's desperate.

[IndianaGreen]

176. DLCers are intoxicated with neocon/PNAC imperialism

you will find the same arguments for war among the PPI/DLC imperialists as you would with their neocon counterparts. It is no wonder why so many Democrats have become advocates of intervention and military action in order to force neo-liberal globalism on the world.

[rodeodance]

77. Kerry is NOT advocating a war--his is a diplomatic process.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

172. If he's backing the NeoCon propaganda, he is indeed advocating war.....

...because that is exactly where the NeoCons are headed.

This is the SAME line of bull we all heard about Iraq before we illegally and immorally invaded/occupird that country.

Why can't everyone see this???

[IndianaGreen]

177. Yep, we heard this bullshit before

and some of those bullshiters had a "D" after their names.

[BikeWriter]

79. Tell that to Saddam. It won't matter to *!

[anitar1]

80. Who cares what Kerry says? I don't. I hope he cannot run again.

It would be another DLC disaster for us.

[oblivious]

99. Ahmadinejad: Iran considers nuclear weapons illegal

"Unfortunately, a group of bullies allows itself to deprive nations of their legal and natural rights," he said. "I tell those superpowers that, with strength and prudence, Iran will pave the way to achieving peaceful nuclear energy."

He reiterated Iran’s rejection of US allegations that it was seeking nuclear weapons. "Our nation does not need nuclear weapons, nor is interested in having them, and even considers them illegal," he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1982212_2,00.html

No how about sanctions on countries with arsenals of these unthinkable, despicable weapons.

[Odin2005]

100. I have a bridge to sell...

...to anyone who thinks Iran is only enriching uranium for nuclear energy. If Iran gets nukes the NPT, which is supposed to give the benifits of nuclear energy to other countries while preventing proliferation of nukes, will be dead.

[oblivious]

105. Can you provide any proof whatsoever that Iran wants nuclea weapons?

[Mountainman]

141. Listening to the wing nut talk shows, are we?

[Heewack]

144. I agree.

Iran is an energy rich nation, and there is simply no reason besides nuclear weapons that they would be this defiant and risk sanctions or worse.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

171. I have another bridge to sell if you believe Iran is a threat the the U. S

[occuserpens]

107. Kerry does it again

Nothing can change the old habit of spineless pointless maneuvering. Everything as with Iraq.

1. Kerry says Iran making "dangerous" nuclear choice: http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=10831391

2. EU Wants Iran Hauled Before Security Council: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,394954,00.html

[AngryAmish]

122. The Iranian people want nukes

The gov't of Iran is none too popular but the one issue that the people of Iran support by wide majorities is nuclear weapons. They beleive it is their right.

By history, the Iranians consider themselves to be a people apart from their neighbors. They do not like the Arabs (or their neighbors to the east) and the Arabs don't like them. As it always has been.

[goforit]

150. Skull and bones stuck together like glue!.Keep blowing *'s hot air Kerry

[Media_Lies_Daily]

151. Shut-up, Kerry. As smart as you are, how can you support the NeoCon...

...Junta on nukes in Iran?

Just shut-up.

[IndianaGreen]

180. Kerry supported the neocons on Venezuela during 2004 campaign

and I am sure that Kerry is merely trying to catch up to Hillary who has been advocating war against Iran and Syria for some time.

[truth2power]

152. I still think it's the oil bourse. n/t

[Geo55]

155. I agree with you ,

"THEY" don't want to spook the herd , but , "THEY" all know we're toast as a "superpower" when this is rolled out......don't need no guns , bombs etc.

It WILL be the beginning of the end.

[oblivious]

163. I agree too.

[NYC]

183. The oil bourse is supposed to open in March,

yes? What country would consider the Iranian oil bourse stable enough if Iran is under threat of attack, or even a suspicion of an invasion?

Could this all be bluster to damage the oil bourse before it begins?

[IndianaGreen]

154. Will Kerry say that the Iran War Resolution is not a war resolution?

What is amazing is that Bush has already made the claim that he doesn't need Congress to go to war, and that Alito said that it was not settled law to have a President start a war solely on his authority as commander in chief.

Kerry should be talking about impeaching Bush and filibustering Alito, not laying the groundwork for another war in the Middle East.

[oblivious]

162. Amazing comment: "Iran is confronting the entire international community"

Never mind that the 114 nation non-aligned movement has excpressed support for Iran's nuclear program and unanimously rejected refering Iran to the Security Council.

What arrogance to assume that the US and Europe speak for the whole world.

[IndianaGreen]

179. He is following the same script that was used on the lead up to Iraq war

The ruling class of this country is truly bipartisan when it comes to imperialism and global hegemony. It is the children of the working class that often have to pay the ultimate price to defende the freedom of the ruling class to rape and pillage the world.

[brainshrub]

174. Can someone tell me what rule Iran is breaking?

I don't want to see Iran go nuclear... but I don't know what law they are breaking or why they don't have a right to nukes if they want them?

[d_b]

175. Well,

we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

[zann725]

178. U.S. makes dangerous choice "egging" Iran on anything.

Particularly given our "intelligence" in the past has been FAR from accurate...our soldiers are already spread thin elsewhere...and our economy and dollar faulters badly.

Oh yeah, poke the "eye" of a country strong enough, with a history "angry" enough to actually strike back at us...substantially.

Diplomacy, diplomacy....please.

[IndianaGreen]

181. War against Iran will guarantee the Left's successes in Latin America

and it may spell the ultimate defeat of American imperialism and military revanchism across the world.

At home, the harsh economic conditions that will result from a war in Iran will push America further into fascism. The Left will be scapegoated and the gullible public will support a gulag on American soil to deal with those that brought America's defeat.

Americans will taste repression!

[obxhead]

184. nevermind......

You lost more support Kerry.....

[bullimiami]

186. How about Germany, John?