Wes Clark warns Iran.

[Clarkie1]

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Gen. Wesley Clark is concerned by Iran`s nuclear ambitions and cautioned the Islamic republic to take U.S. warnings 'very, very seriously.'

In a private conversation with this reporter, the former warrior-turned-politician at the same time admitted being worried by the Bush administration`s strong-arm policies in the Middle East.

'I`m concerned,' said Clark, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe -- SACEUR -- (from 1997 to 2000) and a potential Democratic presidential candidate in the 2008 race for the White House. Clark, who commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War, is worried that the rising tension between the United States and Iran could escalate to a point of no return. As a former soldier who has seen his share of action from Vietnam to Kosovo, Clark is not someone who scares easily.

But the Iranians, too, have reason to be concerned, says Clark. Speaking to United Press International Friday after addressing a meeting of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, Clark said that the Iranians should take 'very, very seriously the prospect of air strikes and missile strikes as well as other operations directed against Iran`s nuclear capacities and all other elements of their military power.'

When it comes to war Clark has an advantage over other presidential candidates. He has tasted the ugliness of war; he knows firsthand what it means seeing men -- sometimes boys hardly old enough to shave -- killed in battle.

'I know what it is to plan and prepare for war and to send the cream of our youth on a mission from which they may not return,' Clark told the group of assembled Democrats a short while earlier. 'I know first hand the struggles of domestic politics and international diplomacy to accomplish a difficult peace after the shooting stops.'

As many people who have lived through the hell called combat, war is the last resort they want to turn to. So what would be different in his policies should Wes Clark be elected president? How would he stop the war in Iraq, for example?

'I would use diplomacy first ... I would find common ground,' said the former soldier.

Isn`t this a tad over-simplifying an over-complicated issue? What if the political track fails?

Clark insists the political track will not fail. 'You have to force them or induce them into the political track,' said Clark. 'You have to use `carrots and sticks.`'

And how do you accomplish this?

By including all countries in the region in accepting a 'statement of principals' which would guarantee the security of each nation, taking into account their needs for secure borders, while promoting and opening up the region to commerce, trade and tourism.

Does 'all countries' in the region include Syria and Iran? Would Clark, as president, establish dialogue with Damascus and Tehran?

'Yes,' he says.

'As I look at the discussions ongoing inside Iran as best I can follow them from here, it`s clear that there are different sectors of opinion in the leadership and I think the leadership needs to understand that it is seriously at risk,' said Clark.

<snip>

Said Clark: 'I speak to you today as the only person who will take this podium before you having actually done the things we need to do to succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world.

'Good Morning. I`m Wes Clark. I`m a soldier and I`m fighting for my country.'

And although he didn`t quite come out and say it, Wes Clark could just as well have added, 'And I want to be the next president of the United States.'

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/features/article_1255817.php/Outside_View_Wes_Clark_warns_Iran

[chimpymustgo]

1. Sounds like war-mongering.

:popcorn:

[Clarkie1]

4. Nice try. nt

[JNelson6563]

21. Oops! It said "Clark", not "Edwards"

If anyone but Clark voices concern about Iran it's warmongering. Got that? Do try to keep up Bunky.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

22. Doh....if you read his quoted words, you note that he used ......

the words "concerned"...

WHAT WES CLARK DIDN'T SAY.....

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons,"

which WAS an Edwards line.

Edwards' other lines were..."Iran must know that the world won’t back down."

and....

"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

If you don't see a difference, that's cause your eyes are shut wide tight.

[BootinUp]

23. You spin with the best. n/t

[lvx35]

2. The best part:

"By including all countries in the region in accepting a 'statement of principals' which would guarantee the security of each nation, taking into account their needs for secure borders, while promoting and opening up the region to commerce, trade and tourism."

The way to peace is completely in finding common ground and language, and reducing their isolation.

[Texas_Kat]

3. Clark sees the Bush administration marching to war with Iran

He knows exactly what he's talking about. Bush is determined, the press is cheerleading. Clark has been ringing alarm bells for 2 years that this would happen,

God, it's Deja vu.

[CarolNYC]

6. Yep,

and he's trying everything he can to try to stop the shit from hitting the fan....

If only he had a little more help....

[Dinger]

5. Yes, He Is Clearly The Cream Of The Crop For 2008

If all things were fair and equal, Wes Clark could win this presidential race with S1,000,000, if that.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[neoblues]

7. Hah, Bush has so much more experience than Clarke!

Clark says 'I know what it is to plan and prepare for war and to send the cream of our youth on a mission from which they may not return,'. Heck, Clarke scarcely got any of his troops killed!

Bush, on the other hand, has first-hand experience of "sending the cream of our youth on a mission from which they will never return". Shoot, as a Commander, Bush has the experience of getting thousands killed and thousands and thousands more wounded and maimed (not to mention being responsible for killing at least a hundred thousand innocent civilians).

Who would you rather have as a Commander? (rhetorical question and moot point since this Bush won't be running for anything again (hopefully)).

[CarolNYC]

8. Well, you got him there...

but I remember reading stories of how Wes would stay up at night until it was confirmed that all of the pilots were back safely or something like that.

Bush, on the other hand, I am told, sleeps like a baby. No worries for him.

[neoblues]

9. It's difficult for those suffering from...

terrible personality disorders and who lack basic human compassion to be bothered by the evil things they do. It's too bad that such people can also pretend to have human feelings or be made to appear more or less normal when they have millions of dollars to spend on public image consutants and advertising experts. Too bad because it allowed our current misleader to be placed in the highest office in the land where he could do real harm. Of course, there were many corrupt, selfish individuals in positions of power to help him and guide him on his course. We need to clean house in Washington, but we also have a deeper problem nationwide. We suffer Republicans in large numbers, who are flawed in so many ways... fear, selfishness, intolerance, hate--and millions of them support these unworthy leaders and their proclaimed goals, and do it falsely in the name of Christianity to boot.

Hopefully, one day soon, enough Americans will gather and exert themselves in concert to once again take back the government, restore freedom and truth the the public media and education and turn the tide, once again making enlightened values the ideal in this country.

Clarke seems like a caring, considerate, rational and high-minded individual, so much the opposite of Bush/Cheney and their wealth/power oriented 'minions'.

Nobody should be sleeping soundly until Bush is not and/or we've turned the ship of state back to a proper course.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Interesting observation

I know you're being facetious to large extent, but in reality, I think you've got a point about why Bush is still in office. An awful lot of Americans voted for Bush over Kerry because they saw him as more experienced in running the war.

Even among those who, in 2004, were starting to doubt whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, and for sure among the many who thought the war had been poorly run... I just think a lot of them said, "well, every war has its mistakes, and Bush did a pretty good job in Afghanistan, so he's got more experience now, and there's that resolve thing, and what do we know about Kerry anyway..."

I think that so long as the war in Iraq is going on, and al Qaeda types are still running around, and maybe we've even bombed Iran and they're attacking or threatening to attack our troops or our homeland, the voters' first concern will be, is this guy someone who can run the war(s) and keep us safe? That will be McCain and Giuliani's angle, maybe Chuck Hagel too, and Gingrich if he jumps in.

I think we each need to ask ourselves, can the Democrat I'm supporting for the nomination compete with that mindset?

[teryang]

10. There is nothing that Iran can do to change neocon plans

By showing weakness, they merely encourage them. Iraq tried to meet every US demand- look what it got them!

[LaBanty]

11. a walking contradiction

On one hand he's warning Iran, on the other hand he's only talking about "talking it out". Now, why would a country with nuclear ambitions give a rat's ass about someone "talking it out"? Unless military action is on the table, which Clark backs away from, they can talk until the end of time. We've been involved with talks with North Korea for quite some time, and it changed nothing. The Norks have gone ahead with their nuclear program, just as planned.

So, what happens if the talks don't go according to plan? What if, after ages of talking about smaller issues, agreements simply can't be met on the larger issues? What if other countries threaten their neighbors with nuclear weapons, or any other kind, for that matter? Then what? Are military options off the table in any case? Is Clark pandering so hard he can't mention military action, but only alludes to it?

I guess maybe Wes Clark likes talking about talking. That's a piss poor substitute for a plan, and really doesn't seem on the up-and-up.

[Schema Thing]

12. read much?

[FrenchieCat]

13. Maybe Clark's plan doesn't include war.....as a first step?

have you thought about that? Maybe it's a last resort called plan T.....and doesn't need to be waved around all of the time.

Maybe he's not attached at the hip or the pocket to AIPAC.

Maybe, just maybe, diplomacy is a plan within it self that has many facets and selling war is not his bag?

Maybe his plan is centered around a theme called making the peace....and maybe he understands that what the mind shall conceive, we can achieve.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Best to study before commenting

Clark has more than alluded to a military option. Clark is the only guy out there who has explicitely described what a military campaign against Iran's nuclear site would look like, what forces would be used how, and how long it would take, and he's done so on cable news, not only in front of a select audiance, and the clips are available now on his web site for all to see.

But Clark is just about the only guy out there who also describes at length what would likely follow in the months and years AFTER the U.S. military took out Iran's nuclear program, if that is what we do. It is a grim picture with no happy ending, which is why Wes Clark has been doing everything in his power for over two years to sound a warning bell that the Bush Administration is marching to war with Iran without any serious and sustained direct diplomatic efforts to pursue any other alternative.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. There's no trick to planning the military option

Clark laid it out some time ago. Depending on the reliability of your targetting intelligence, you can probably bomb Iran back five to ten years in their nuclear acquisition process without too much trouble. That is, if they don't decide to use their oil wealth to buy the technology instead, in which case you'll only delay them a year or two.

The problem is, as Wes said, "What comes next?" We could bomb Iran back to the stone age if we really wanted to, but we can't occupy it. Bush has decimated our military enough to ensure that. And bombing by itself has never ever won a war. Never will. Even in Kosovo, it took a diplomatic squeeze on Milosevic, political pressure on moderate Serbs, and the tangible threat of a ground invasion, to make the air campaign work.

Does anybody really expect Iran to roll over and say, "gee, you bombed us, we're so scared, we'll never say or do anything you don't like again"?

[Jai4WKC08]

16. Have you noticed something?

You wrote: "We've been involved with talks with North Korea for quite some time, and it changed nothing. The Norks have gone ahead with their nuclear program, just as planned."

Have you noticed that we're not at war with North Korea?

Maybe we will be tomorrow. Maybe not. But today we're not, and the many millions living in Seoul, within range of NK missiles, are still alive.

Gee, I guess that's what talking gets you. You get to put off war just a little bit longer. You know, while economic, social, technological changes take place. Like in the Soviet Union, which collapsed. And China, which is barely recognizable as the country Mao ran.

Winston Churchill said, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." Do you think he was "pandering"?

[Clark2008]

18. Nice lack of personal info on your profile there.

[xxqqqzme]

19. ah, lucy you got some readin' to do.

'...involved with talks with North Korea for quite some time...'actually that was near the end of the Clinton administration - the neo-con puppet refused to continue the talks after Jan. 20. 2001.

[knight_of_the_star]

20. We don't need force as the first option

Banging the war drums doesn't work well in place of talking either, it's what we did with Iraq and are doing with Iran. That and we haven't even TRIED talking with North Korea thankyouverymuch. The only gains made there is because China reminded North Korea who their daddy is.

[BootinUp]

24. We would be lucky

too have someone with Clark's gifts of communication and intelligence setting foreign policy. I am not shocked bu I am dismayed that some here see fit to take his comments and twist them to completely opposite meaning.

Clearly he is expressing concern over the direction under the current administration.