"GOING FOR IRAN" Your interpretation please

[slipslidingaway]

Sorry for the caps but the house story seems to be diverting attention from remarks made this week. Intentional???


Does anyone else find this a bit worrying or just me, thanks in advance. I've posted this before but no reply.

According to the Herzliya Conference site these words were used by Edwards this week in answer to a question, last paragraph below.


http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

Question and Answer:

Cheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran? I think there is cynicism about the ability of diplomacy to work in this situation. Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?

A: My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

[ShortnFiery]

1. IMO, no one nation has a right to attack another nation.

Why is it that the USA and Israel gets to pick and choose which country has Nuclear Weapons when *all countries* should negotiate to get rid of all their weapons to avert a nuclear disaster?

Is there any HARD evidence that Iran is NOT doing as they say, "Seeking Nuclear Power for energy concerns?"

We, the mighty mighty USA do not have a right to behave like thugs.

NO WAY, NO HOW, pResident Dimson, is not "the decider" for of the World Community.

We're not even in the M.E. Neighborhood but seen as INVADERS.

IMO Get our troops out of the entire M.E. theater. Very few neighbors want us (only the Saudi Royals and Israel).

Israel, we love ya, but it's not "our dance" (USA Military) so let's work through diplomacy to reach detente with ALL OF IRAQ'S NEIGHBORS. Yes, that includes Syria and Iran. :shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

3. Thanks for the reply. Do you find those words troubling as well?

[ShortnFiery]

8. Absolutely "wetting one's pants" type-frightening!

Yes, I am very afraid. You and me will not have a bunker to hunker down in and dying of radiation poisoning is an horrific experience. :cry: :scared:

All OUR threats and war talk is NOT making The World safer NOR encourage *any* of Iraq's neighbors to stand down on development of nuclear weapons. It's the opposite, every M.E. nation who doesn't have NUKES are desperately seeking them. Mission Accomplished for our Dear Leader and his Reverse Midas Touch. :grr: Both he and Darth Cheney will have reinforced bunkers to flee to, us "little people" will not. :(

[slipslidingaway]

10. Agree and think we should be tough not stupid in with our

language.

[ShortnFiery]

13. Yes, tough is good, but all this swagger is just plain

scaring the be-jesus out of the rest of the world. As if we were not feared and loathed enough thanks to these evil warmongering ghouls who STILL hold the reigns on our military might. :(

[frogcycle]

9. while I generally agree in principle,

realism has to set in at some point. behaving like thugs is bad; on the other hand, there could be circumstances where its "us or them". Much more extreme circumstances than we are talking about here, but your blanket statement is a little too blanket. while no nation has a "right" to attack another, it happens all the time, has since the beginning of the concept of nations.

if we got the HARD evidence, we might not have a "right", but could have a pressing "need" to do something about it. if you were thrown in a snakepit, would you try to negotiate with the snakes?

and of course we should have relations with and dialog with the bad guys. hell, we had relations with the USSR when Khruschev was saying "we'll bury you" and throughout the missile crisis.

[ShortnFiery]

12. Us vs. Them is neo-con speak

Both the Saudis and Domestic Oil will glean skyrocketing profits to make the past few years seem like their recession. Once Iranian Oil is cut off, both our evil Domestic Oil and Saudi Oil will up the price of oil into the ozone.

No, it's a ruse to say that we are threatened.

NO ONE Country wants to ever use a Nuclear Bomb. NONE OF THEM!!!

All this "they are savages" talk is just repeating "The Big Lie" that the corporate elites are telling us feeble minded (to them) chattering classes that it is righteous :wtf: to KILL other members of the human race. And for what? ---> for the ruling political elites PROFIT MARGIN and viewing pleasure at how stupid we are that we can be convinced to annihilate other working people in all parts of the world for our Corporate Masters, i.e. I'll blow your f**king head off for my country. :wtf: over.

Attacking Iran will be just as much of A War Crime as it was in Attacking Iraq. :puke:

But the media has brought us to past the point of caring about Crimes against Humanity because the USA and Israel are the biggest, baddest military powers on the block ... for now.

[frogcycle]

16. crap

I repeat:
there could be circumstances where its "us or them".
(emphasis added)

that is a statement of fact, and i stated it, and I am not a neo-con, so it is not "neo-con speak"

most of your points are well taken, and I said so. But the blanket "no nation has a right" is naive at best.

pull your head out of the sand and try to marry your idealism with just a touch of realism.

[ShortnFiery]

18. It's no time for complacency.

It's all a racket. I love the military ... I've served in Army Intelligence. However, don't want them to be misused by warmongering PNAC Neo-Conservatives.

The same ghoulish men who were kicked out of Nixon's Executive Branch are back now.

Now ask yourself, what did Nixon do when he felt he was cornered?

He expanded the Vietnam war to bomb Laos and Cambodia.

If left unchecked, Bush will BOMB Iran before 2008! From there, all Hell's going to break loose in the M.E. and the Neo-Conservatives don't care one whit. Isn't there some nice places in South America some of them have scoping out?

If you wish to sit on your butt to wait and see, I promise not to say "I told you so" when the radio conveys that
*THIS IS NOT A TEST.*

Besides, I couldn't even if I wanted to: EMP is murder on all things electronic. :nuke: ;)

[slipslidingaway]

2. Thanks for the recommend :)

[TheBaldyMan]

4. about as worrying as the Edwards real estate nonsense.

Bush II is on his knees begging for money to sent 20k troops to Iraq, wtf is he supposed to fight the Iranian Army with "SPITBALLS?!?!" (copyright Z. Miller).

More Iran panic, take deep breaths and remember that even Dumbya isn't that dumb, big oil would dump him in a nanosecond.

Neo-cons aren't running the administration - big oil is.

[slipslidingaway]

6. Hope you are correct n/t

[ShortnFiery]

11. You miss the beauty of the deception!

Big Oil, mainly Dear Leader's best buds, The Saudi Royal Family will enjoy a windfall because the cost of oil will skyrocket with a bombing of Iran. An added benefit to the royal family will be that we kill a whole lotta Shiites. That's just ducky with M.E. Big Oil. :wow:

Domestic Oil don't give a damn because they can raise their prices too and make a killing JUST LIKE they did during Hurricane Katrina. :wow:

Israel gets to enjoy the Sunnis and Shiites killing each other instead of targeting them. Also they get to have US (the USA Military) kill both groups. :wow:

It's a perfect plan for all our Corporate Elites who are invested within any area of the Military Industrial Machine to make Billions upon Billions more. :wow:

So what if Iraq's Oil Infrastructure gets bombed back, the Oil tycoons will tell Dear Leader to take more money our of OUR Treasury to pay for them to rebuild it. :wow:

Remember, anyone heavily invested in *anything* connected to the war machine's blood money from our Treasury (corporations, ammo, armaments, contracting personnel and structure support) is going to become even more FILTHY RICH from gutting money from the taxes that those "stupid little people" (that's you and me in the Working and Middle Classes) pay each year to Uncle Sam.

It's so EVIL, but also so DAMN PERFECT because the corporate media has been their obedient servant since 9-11. :(

[TheBaldyMan]

15. erm, with respect that is complete rot, Iran is a real country

with real armed forces and has no interest in a widened conflict. They will never let themselves be suckered into a fight (Not everybody has Bush flair for international politics, thank God).

It is twice the land area and has twice the population of Iraq. The Shi'ites are the majority in Iraq have long-standing cultural ties with the Shi'ite regime in Iran. This majority of Iraqis would not sit idly by if Iran was attacked.

You may have noticed that the US position there is completely untenable.

Yet lots of posters here at DU persist in the fantasy that we are hours away from a widened conflict even though that would mean stretching an already stretched force thinner. Who would bolster them, the military might of the Saudis?

The House of Saud may prefer a weakened Iran but they will not be the ones to do that about, the US or Israel would have to be their proxy. There are a couple of problems with this. The lesson learned in Lebanon and Iraq is this : even with overwhelming military might you cannot subdue a determined and highly motivated foe. Also the forces aren't there.

The US and Israel are both far superior to any other armed forces in the Near and Middle East region but their military prowess isn't enough. While not paper tigers (witness the casualties in Iran and Lebanon) the only outcome would be widespread civilian casualties and a weakened political position.

You can't seriously ask me to accept that the commission of more war crimes leading to a further weakened US abroad is desirable or likely. Bush does not have a republican majority in both houses any more. He needs congress more than they need him. Congress controls the money, not the President.

You need a huge amount of cash and a large corps of fresh,trained troops to fight a war, America has neither anymore. The treasury is deep in the red and the armed forces are disintegrating.

Bushes solution to this, as always, is even more stop-loss, war profiteering and tax-breaks for billionaires.

Do you see a pattern emerging here? It hasn't worked - more of the same will have the exact same outcome, failure. Any attack on Iran would make matters worse.

[ShortnFiery]

17. They will start with the bombing of "suspected sites"

and it will escalate into a full blown ground war complete with a mandatory draft and an birthing of Dear Leader's Volunteer Civilian Corps. This nightmare is already beginning so please don't act complacent?

Yes, this Administration is that MAD, and there's BIG MONEY to be made by those who don't give a damn about "the government" and especially about your and my TAX DOLLARS. They want to transfer the wealth to the Military Industrial Complex.

After all, *all* those bombs are not going to blow up themselves. :wow:

No joke, if we don't start now to investigate and impeach this Administration, "The Gates of Hell open up before 2008."

I hope I'm wrong but I'm not. :(

We must STOP THEM NOW like there's NO tomorrow for there may not be. :scared:

[TheBaldyMan]

20. please read my post again, the bit about Israel getting it's but kicked in Lebanon

attack on Iran can't work, won't work and will aggrevate the already uncontrollable situation in Iraq.

Not jaw-droppingly scary at all. The 'attack on Iran' brigade are talking rot, they always have been talking rot and have been doing so here at D??U since April 2003.

Search the archives using the keywords "OMG IRAN IMMANENT ATTACK!11!!!!1!" , keep the case and punctuation exactly as given here, you'll still get 2-3 threads a month going back 4 years.

Excuse me for the snarky tone but I've been pouring cold water on these threads for four years, I am still giving exactly the same reasons as circa May 2004 onward.

[ShortnFiery]

22. The FACTS don't matter to Dear Leader, he will BOMB Iran before November. 2008 n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Hopefully, it's just political posturing from a candidate trying to look "tough".

Of course, the danger is that he start believing his own BS, like a previous president did when he "saved" us from the "falling dominoes" in SE Asia.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Yes that is a danger and hard to ignore the words that are being

spoken.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I am fed up with political posturing.

I believe political posuring by some Democrats facing the 2002 midterm elections, or thinking about the 2004 elections, helped Bush set up the invasion of Iraq.

[mmonk]

19. In the context it is given, he is saying the people are hesitant

about taking on Iran because of the negative outcome so far with Iraq. But if they are "educated" about Iran (like they were "educated" about Iraq), then it can be a go.

[slipslidingaway]

21. That was my interpretation as well, we need to educate

ourselves about the upcoming 'education.' :think: