US presidential candidate (Edwards): Iran serious about its threats

[Scurrilous]

Former Senator John Edwards (Dem.) tells Herzliya Conference serious political, economic steps should be taken against Islamic Republic; 'in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table,' he says, adding that Syria should be held accountable for its support of Hizbullah, Hamas

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html

<snip>

"Iran is serious about its threats," former US Senator John Edwards told the Herzliya Conference at the Interdisciplinary Center on Monday.

"The challenges in your own backyard – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel," said the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, referring mainly to the Iranian threat.

In his speech, Edwards criticized the United States' previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.

Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table."

On the recent UN Security Council's resolution against Iran, Edwards said more serious political and economic steps should be taken. "Iran must know that the world won’t back down," he said."

<snip>

"After opening his speech with great praise for former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Edward's continued to express great appreciation for the Israeli people and the special bond between the two countries, saying it was "a bond that will never be broken."

[Altean Wanderer]

1. There goes any support I would have given Edwards

I'm voting Kucinich in the NH primary. Any attack on Iran will backfire badly, and could lead to a wider war in the region and perhaps even with China and/or Russia. Why do so many Dems feel the need to out-hawk the Neocons?

[Springster]

4. So what would Edwards actually do about Iran? Is he really saying that a

preemptive strike is a viable option? Given Iran's strong support of Hizballa and other groups, an Iranian nuclear capability seems to be unacceptable. If anything cries out for sitting back and letting another another concerned nation (perhaps Israel) take the lead, wouldn't this be it?

[Acadia Blue]

46. In reality, Hillary is just next to him in this type of thoughtl. Unfortunately

[Zhade]

82. Since Iran doesn't currently have nukes, it would be a PREVENTATIVE strike, not preemptive.

Like with Iraq, there is no imminent threat that demands we attack. Thus, an attack would be preventative in nature, and would be illegal under international law.

[brentspeak]

19. As if you were actually planning on supporting Edwards in the first place

[Jawja]

20. Yep. Me, too.

I really did like him, but if he's going to go out and parrot the neocon foreign policy line, I can't vote for him.

I am really disappointed.

[mike_c]

26. agreed-- this is NOT what I wanted to hear from a presidential candidate....

Damn.

[Lone_Wolf]

84. He lost my support on that too...

I'm not sure who I'll be supporting now.

[The Stranger]

135. Goodbye, John Edwards, we hardly knew ya.

Neocon mole.

[AnOhioan]

2. So disappointing to hear this from Edwards....

Iran is run by by an egomaniac who loves to hear himself talk, much like the US. I seriously doubt that threats to annihilate Israel are anything more than rhetoric designed to boost his own image.

I cannot, in good conscience, support Edwards now for the Presidency.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imagevision]

92. Stop being naive, Hillary, Obama, Biden will all parrot Edwards Iran comments

Israel feels threatened and they expect the US. to do it's part by doing whatever is necessary --- anyone doubt this? Iran's leader said they want to wipe Israel off the map, personally I couldn't care less after watching Israel slaughter those women and children last year! that was over kill!!

[barb162]

110. Hezbollah slaughtered a lot of people and started that war

[The Stranger]

137. No, that is wrong. Lebanon was invaded by Israel, and that is how it became a war.

[harun]

119. If they all say this then I will vote for NONE of them. (n/t)

[MGD]

130. You'll be sooo much better represented when a Republican wins then.

:sarcasm:

[harun]

134. Anyone who says this _IS_ a Repug (nt)

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MGD]

129. FWIW, Mahmoud Ahmedinijihad doesn't run Iran at all. He is a very weak executive actually.

The Guardian Council, the Council of Experts and the Supreme Leader run the country in accordance with their understanding of Muhammad's will.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. He also claimed Iraq had

WMD and SPONSORED the IWR.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Little Star]

8. I wonder what ALL our hopefuls have to say

about Iran? We know where Hillary stands on this. What about the rest of them?

[femmedem]

9. Sigh. He hasn't learned as much as I'd hoped he had.

K&R. Thanks for informing us with this post. And yes, this means I won't be voting for him in the primary.

[Kagemusha]

10. Uh which threats would those be?

If he means specific threats, uh which ones would those be?

If he means "Iran is threats to the world and Israel" then it's improper grammar. If he means specific, proper threats, I have no idea which ones he's talking about - Iran has never explicitly threatened to nuke Israel off the map, so... what the hell is he talking about?

If that's a rhetorical question, my apologies...

[barb162]

108. Most countries do not explicitly threaten before war starts

[rcdean]

11. Sucking up to the Israeli lobby. It's sad. I had hopes for Edwards.

I can not support somebody in his position who is so ignorant that he does not acknowledge that Iran is profoundly divided, that Ahmedinejad is a nut case but one with no control of the Iran's military apparatus at all, and that an attack on Iran is extremely unlikely to be able to reach and destroy the deep underground fortified facilities they undoubtedly have in place for refinement of nuclear materials.

What leaders need to start saying--in order to restore some sanity--is that every nation in the world that has acquired nukes quickly recognizes, if they didn't before, that MAD is a reality. Nukes are therefore purely defensive weapons. Even madmen recognize that logic.

Nor would Iran's Mullahs allow Ahmadinejad to have his finger on the trigger in any case.

This kind of rhetoric just feeds the right wing war machine.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

83. We welcome such astute analysis at DU!

Very glad to have another reasonable, informed person here - you'll help balance out the paranoid/misinformed/anti-Arab people here who wrongly assert that Iran currently has nukes and should be attacked (they're few, but they're utter fools).

Iran is 5-10 years away from nukes, at BEST. Thank you for adding your worthwhile comments, and welcome aboard!

[Imagevision]

93. Israel is part of the equation and will always be,

[barb162]

109. Ahmadinejad is the Mullahs' boy

Yours:"Nukes are therefore purely defensive weapons. Even madmen recognize that logic."

Really? I think that jihadist isn't thinking like you're expecting him to think.

[Gasping4Truth]

133. It doesn't matter what's on a jihadist's mind

What's important is: do they have nukes? The answer is no.

When it comes to nuclear proliferation, you have to hold every nation to the same standard. In that respect, a Likudnik with a hidden arsenal of 100-200 nukes scares me more than a jihadist without nukes.

[Morgana LaFey]

139. Yep. "Pandering" was the word that sprang to mind before I even

read past the first sentence.

Bah!

[Leilani]

12. Interesting that the MSM is not covering this story

And people are worried about Obama's experience?

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Perhaps because the speech was given in Isreal, not the US?

:shrug:

[Leilani]

25. Do you think it would have been a non-story

if these statements were made by Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Obama, or Clark?

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Probably for Clark

He really isn't considered a front-runner.

[Leilani]

37. He can't be a front runner if he's not in the race &

He' been too busy for the past few years to campaign round the clock, unlike some others.

Some people have to do that strange thing called "work."

[The Stranger]

55. Edwards is running for office in the U.S.; it is immaterial where he gives his speech.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. It is if the US media was not alerted to the fact that it was occurring

They are not omniscient.

[RegimeChange2008]

103. Actually it's not immaterial at all.

The fact that he DID give a speech before a bunch of Likud fascists and their neocon partners in crime matters a great deal.

I realize that's not what you were arguing, but it still has to be said.

[Skwmom]

29. Because the MSM is cheer-leading for Edwards

if you haven't noticed. This would conflict with trying to make a co-sponsor of the IWR into the anti-war candidate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. I thought that they were cheerleading for Hillary and Obama

[citizen snips]

13. I don't trust Holocaust deniers.

or their acting president who meets with former members of the KKK.

[Leilani]

16. Who are the Holocaust deniers?

And what does that have to do with Edwards sabre rattling against Iran?

[citizen snips]

17. The acting president of Iran

has described the holocaust as a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

He also teamed up with the former KKK grand wizard David Duke
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-iran13dec13,0,2528243.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

Do you trust Holocaust deniers?

[Leilani]

23. Of course not!

To me this is not about Israel; this is about U.S. Foreign Policy.

Iran is in a state of turmoil right now. The mullahs are fed up with the rantings & ravings of their nutty leader, & are slowly withdrawing their support. (Several good articles available on this topic) He may be gone very soon.

No, Edwards slammed Iran & Syria. I think most people believe that diplomacy with these 2 countries is the best path. Some have suggested a regional Middle East Conference, including all parties in the area.

Sabre rattling at this time will produce no good results.

And I resent the not-so-subtle hint that I am anti-Semetic because I disagree with the comments made by Edwards.

[citizen snips]

31. no pun intended.

my apologies for offending you but I find the comments by the acting president to be very polarizing and very sickening. Edwards is not saber rattling he is only acknowledging the potential threat of authoritarian leaders in that region thats all. Those comments are real and there is no way to hide from it. I would like to see those articles. I heard that Iran's acting president has lost support in recent elections.

[Zhade]

85. The Iranian president does. not. control. the. military.

How many times does this have to be pointed out?

Even if he called today for nuking Israel off themap - which he hasn't, yet - HE CAN'T DO IT.

[barb162]

113. He's a mouthpiece for the mullahs

granted their system is unlike ours. The mullahs basically control the country

[citizen snips]

124. how many times does it have to be pointed out

that this guy is a holocaust denier?

[Gasping4Truth]

128. In Iran

one powerless hack denies a genocide. Yet somehow this is forged into a reason that the whole nation might be fooling the IAEA's inspectors and must be invaded very soon before they can match Israel's rogue nuke arsenal.

In Turkey on the other hand, a whole nation lives in denial, yet we (NATO) don't have a problem to keep nukes on their soil.

Talk about double standards. :eyes:

Let me tell you: IAEA inspectors are not so easy to be fooled, no matter what the intentions of the inspected nation are.

I can't believe I have to repeat these arguments over and over again (remember Iraq?). On DU of all places.

Don't allow yourself to be pushed around so easily by the war drumbeat of Western oil interests.

[karynnj]

87. The President of Iran does not have the power

we think of a President having. The mullahs and the Supreme Leader (or something like that - it's what the Khomeni was) has the real power. The President's party LOST substantial power in a recent election.

Iran was one of the first countries to extend condolences after 911. The younger people in the country were moving towards a more secular government. Bush actually told people they shouldn't vote in the election of this nut because it was not a fair election - which it wasn't.

As to Edwards, shouldn't some one try to get the whole speech? The worst statement is not his but the writer's. The speech, hopefully is more moderate than it seems - it would seem likely given his curret Iraq stand.

[Taoschick]

105. Let's also remember

That Khamenei could reign in Ahmadinejad at any time. I suspect there is a little good cop/bad cop going on here. Ahmadinejad takes the heat and Khamenei cools the flames. It would be a grave error to suggest that Khamenei isn't pulling the strings.

[barb162]

114. That's right. No one even gets to be up for prez unless the

mullahs approve it first

[barb162]

112. Take a look at the people who started and attended the conference

set up by the pres of Iran. Anyone who denies reality and is in a position of leadership and who does a lot of saber rattling such as Iran's pres...I think we all better be worried about Iran. He is backed by the mullahs.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

111. And one who keeps chanting a country should be wiped off the map

This guy is itching for a fight and he's a serious Jew hater

[citizen snips]

123. Thank you

people have to start realizing what this guy is. Based on his comments he should not be trusted.

[Gasping4Truth]

132. Let him chant

the fact is: Iran cannot wipe Israel off the map because they have no nukes (Israel hides 100-200 of them). And even if they tried anyway, they would be wiped off the map themselves before they can say "jihad".

[sendero]

14. This is politics...

... Edwards is positioning himself as tough on foreign policy. He WAS going to use Iraq to do that, but that avenue has been closed, so he has to have a new "enemy".

The problem with this is that it is hard to tell where rhetoric ends and real beliefs begin. If I thought JE really believed what he is saying, I'd stay home if he got the nomination.

A war-crazy Dem is no better than a war-crazy Puke.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[furman]

52. Israel does not commit genocide, it is a patently false allegation that demonizes Israel

On the contrary, it is the terrorist groups such as
Hamas and Hezbollah that have genocidal intentions towards Israel and the Jews.

When terrorist groups and Ahmadinejad threaten Israel's existence, Jews have historical precedent to believe them.

[RegimeChange2008]

100. The Palestinians and Lebanese might disagree with you

In no way would I ever deny or trivialize the Holocaust, but it saddens me greatly to see Israeli Jews treating other people as unjustly as their own ancestors were treated by the Nazis, among others. Whether it is yet on the same scale as Hitler or not isn't the point. Rabbi Meir Kahane was admittedly genocidal toward Arabs and Palestinians, and the Likud fascists seem to think he was a pretty good role model. And while I would prefer to believe that this is NOT the viewpoint of most Israelis (and certainly not most American Jews) it IS the way the current ruling faction of the Israeli government believes, and they have acted according to that delusional belief. Just as their PNAC associates have led the Chimpministration into doing.

Again, these people are the minority just as the so-called "Christians" who believes God talks to the cokehead monkey are the minority. But yet they get their yahoos (or netan-yahoos, as the case may be) in power, and the rest of us pay the price. Jew, Christian, atheist, Palestinian, Noodle Monster Cultist, or whatever. It's time to drive the fascists out of BOTH governments.

[Gasping4Truth]

131. That's what you get when you grab people's land,

demolish their towns, push them into unlivable ghettos, and hold them restrained there for several generations. They might go crazy and return the favour.

And how exactly will an Iran-Israel conflict lead to the destruction of Israel? After all, the Iranians are not the ones hiding 100-200 undeclared nukes up their sleeves.

[Jim Sagle]

53. When David Duke gets the Democratic nomination, THAT'S when!

:rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Skwmom]

30. Like he did when he co-sponsored the IWR.? Of course he

did say he was sorry when support for the war reached an all-time low.

[Pawel K]

43. IWR Was just politics too and it led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost

its time we elect someone that has the balls to speak out, not someone that will go with the flow to get elected.

Edwards & Hillary could both kiss my ass. I hope Clark runs, if he doesn't Obama might be my second choice.

[Zhade]

86. This isn't positioning. This is bolstering the lie that Iran is an imminent threat.

I agree with your last sentence, and I don't trust liars, so Edwards will not EVER get my vote.

[LynnTheDem]

21. Gee, what threats would that be, John?

Their "threat" to gain nuclear power, which is their inalienable right under the NPT?

That "threat"?

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. The NPT does not declare ownership of nuclear weapons as an inalienable right

[Celefin]

35. There is a slight difference...

...between "nuclear weapons" and "nuclear power".

The West wants to sanction Iran for enriching uranium.
Enriching uranium for peaceful use is allowed under the
NPT. Other things laid down in that treaty include the dismantling
of existing weapons and the stopping of all R&D for new weapons.
Which some well known countries criticizing Iran for their
lawful actions do. In open breach of said treaty.
But I guess that's going too far already.

The thing about proving that you don't want to use uranium for a bomb
is that it's awfully hard to prove a negative.
Whether or not you believe what the players are telling you is another
matter of course, but legally at the moment Iran is right.

[grayokc]

78. Then why do they restrict inspectors?

The west certainly isn't trying to gain any 'nuclear secrets' from Iran's fledgling nuclear program...

[Zhade]

88. Evidence, please - and Fox News doesn't count.

NT!

[Gasping4Truth]

116. No "evidence", but references

can be found here.

[Gasping4Truth]

115. Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers

Iran feels threatened because it is surrounded by hostile nations with nuclear weapons: Israel, Pakistan, Turkey (US nukes on NATO bases). Two of its neighbours (Afghanistan, Iraq) are occupied by its nuclear nemesis US of A. Both Israel & the US have a very active track record of agression in the region.

Iran tries to run a covert nuclear weapons program as a sort of skunkworks project within its legitimate nuclear energy program that's controlled by the IAEA.

For an NPT signatory like Iran, such a weapons program is virtually impossible to keep under wraps. That's why we see the onset of the same bickering with the IAEA that we saw in Iraq before the invasion. That's also why the only nations to have successfully developed nuclear weapons somewhat covertly are all NPT non-signatories (Israel, India, Pakistan) or ex-signatories (North Korea).

Even if Iran threw out all IAEA inspectors now, they would still be far away from building a nuke, and their attempts would still be more or less monitorable, because producing weapons grade materials is no small undertaking. You leave telltale marks of an industrial scale, ready for any spysat to check out.

The success of the NPT in avoiding and even turning back the spread of nuclear weapons is impossible to underestimate and receives far too little recognition.

A invasion of Iran would have devastating consequences for nuclear non-proliferation. It would tell every nation in the world that it doesn't matter if you comply to the NPT. You can be invaded anyway for whatever pretext is at hand, to protect the interests of some NPT non-signatories. What better reason do you need to ramp up your nuke development effort?

I don't know the full content of Edwards' speech, but *if* he did like is suggested in the OP, going to Israel (a nuke toting NPT non-signatory) and complaining there about the nuclear intentions of Iran (an NPT signatory having a couple of unresolved issues with the IAEA) *without* any word on Israel's nukes, then he is a raving hypocrite.

[daleo]

71. It's true, the nuclear weapons states were supposed to give them up.

It seems unlikely that will happen though. Therefore, it seems likely that many more states will acquire nuclear weapons, including Iran.

[LynnTheDem]

79. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons.

They want nuclear power.

They do have an inalienable right to that.

[lumpy]

22. Oh boy, Edwards just shot himself in the foot.

Praising 'bulldozer' Sharon doesn't set well with people who are concerned with human rights. Political marriage 'bonds' do indeed quite often get broken. Edwards is showing his lack of foreign policy experience. Never say never, John, and for heaven's sake don't prostitute yourself for votes.
Does anyone really believe he gives a rat's ass about the people of Israel? Politics as usual.

[bdamomma]

28. As much I as like Edwards he is not experienced with foreign

policy, he has more appeal in domestic matters, kind of discouraging to hear from Edwards, but we need someone who is both foreign and domestic issue savvy. Now who does that leave?

[StudentDUer]

32. The intelligence agencies don't agree

Edwards, I know you want to get elected by pulling the oldest trick in the book -- scaring the public -- but you're not even a Senator anymore. You can't vote for this war, Amen.

[ryanmuegge]

33. Meet the new boss...

Yep. Spoken like a true neocon.

Wasn't that a Republican talking point a couple years ago: "all options are on the table."

[mopinko]

34. yup

when i find a candidate that turns these stupid frames into toothpicks, i will sell my children to support her/him.

[ananda]

36. Damn.. double damn!

I will not support Edwards any more.

Maybe Wes Clark will do.

[citizen snips]

38. delete

[ms liberty]

42. I'm really disappointed in Edwards...

He wasn't my first choice anyway (Gore is). But I could have supported him, because he's got some good ideas, he's lived in the real world and understands that average americans are suffering. Now he's sucking up to the right-wing Israeli lobby and repeating propaganda about Iran. Dammit. I want truth and facts, not bullshit rhetoric!!!!

[DixieBlue]

44. Well that's sad.

I had hopes for Edwards. This primary process is going to be interesting.

[ohio2007]

47. Edwards drinks Kool-Aid, film at 11

Will he flip flop next year to appease voters ?

[Emillereid]

48. He just lost my support too! Enough of this fear-mongering --

I'll take Scott Ritter's assessment over any politician running for office. Ritter after all was totally right on Iraq!

[silverlil]

51. Edwards just lost my support also!

[Hun Joro]

49. That's really disappointing...

I like a lot of what Edwards has to say, but this warmongering talk has lowered my previously rising opinion of him as a presidential candidate.

[ShortnFiery]

50. They are buying into the glory of "tough talk" warmongering ...

I guess it makes them feel strong. To me, it's embarrassing and stupid.

IF we fight a ground war with IRAN, be prepared to give up your children.

Lean down between your legs and kiss your a** goodbye because there will be NO WAY OUT of the impending Nuclear Winter! :grr:

Personally, I hope I get taken out in the first blast because dying of radiation poisoning is an horrific way to check out of this earthly existance. :scared: :shrug:

Yeah, it's that important to use detente! MORANS! (Both Democratic and Republican).

[Zhade]

89. I've always said that if I couldn't escape the Cancer Zone...

...I'd load up on all kinds of drugs like shrooms and acid and drive to Ground Zero.

Better to die that way than a slow, painful death.

Thankfully, Iran is not an imminent nuclear threat!

[UCLA Dem]

54. So much for that.

[The Anti-Neo Con]

56. Ahh this upsets me.

:cry:

I'll continue to support him however for his efforts to end poverty. Poverty is a bigger problem to us than Iran ever will be.

[dad]

117. Edwards is the problem for us

if he ever gets elected president. You would think I should be one of his big supporters since I am more familiar than most with his actions. He is a slimeball.

[alecshawn]

57. Ah, People....

I actually agree with Mr. Edwards here. Iran IS a threat not only to us"US" but the rest of the Arab world as well. Iran Is a real threat to the US, They need to be dealt with.

[Bridget Burke]

58. Iran is not part of "the Arab world"....

Diplomacy is the best way to "deal with" Iran.

[alecshawn]

62. I know thier Persian

My point was that the Arab world doent want Iran to gain power. Diplomacy sometimes is complete waste. Just ask Israel. In the case of Iran diplomacy im afraid will NOT do a hoot.

[ShortnFiery]

65. Your terminology is way off to the point that would suggest a

profound lack of understanding.

1st) it's the Middle Eastern World (Arabs, Kurds, Israelis, Persians, etc.) and

2nd) what you wish to "deal with" is to put our troops in the middle of an Civil war between two MUSLIM factions. Sunni vs. Shia.


We have NO, I repeat NO business "dealing militarily" with anyone within the Middle East. Why? Simply Stated = It's NOT our neighborhood.

What we must do is use detente and diplomacy in order to get "Iraq's neighbors" (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, UAE and Israel) to work WELL WITH EACH OTHER.

The USA needs to be an honest broker, not a puppet of either Israel OR Saudi Arabia, i.e., neither Sunni or Shia supporters.

[Bridget Burke]

67. Well, Bush is not even trying diplomacy with Iran.

We had relations with the USSR during the Cold War. Nixon opened China. Result: No WWIII.

[Wizard777]

70. No not anymore. They are Iranians. The Persians followed The Wize Lord Ahura Mazda.

We know not theese fools.

[Flanker]

75. So you really are proposing war?

So much for you being a progressive more like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Scooter24]

121. War should always be a last resort effort...

And I think John knows this as well.

There's a big difference between being progressive and just stupid.

[ShortnFiery]

63. Psst! Don't let them know that Iranians are known as PERSIAN

and speak FARSI not ARABIC. :eyes:

Depending on one's perspective, the BASIC FACTS just might make one's head explode.

Small doses of realty.

Oh no,

Clean up in Aile One! :P

[ShortnFiery]

61. Oh oh oh Mr. Kot-ter! "They need to be dealt with!"

<toilet flushing> :rofl:

[daleo]

74. We heard the same story about Iraq

And after the proposed Iran war, we will hear the same story about "Country 3" - well it turns out Iraq and Iran weren't really threats, but third time's a charm.

[LynnTheDem]

80. What threat is Iran to the US?

The US is the nation making all the threats.

Or did you also believe Iraq was a threat to the US?

[PATRICK]

59. The problem,

granting the context of the speech to an Israeli security conference, is that "hinting" that military options should be kept on the table. Whose options? The UN alone? Israel? The US whose regime cannot be trusted per Edwards first apology for being gulled in exactly the manner he seems to be repeating? Those options cannot be exercised at all if the US in collusion with some ME special interests has a plan to hit Iran whether it really poses a nuclear threat or not. Israel is in the process of drumbeating this military "option" just as was done here for Iraq. Media. Bully pulpit. Hype. The Jewish paper source for this post only uses select quotes but they are pretty strong for going with Israel's side in all the current policies and actions though with a strong attack against the WH for failing them.

Carter just got on the opposite side of the flak when addressing a Palestinian audience. For which he may be grateful he is not running for nay office in the future. Edwards' full speech is not present here and in the context it is the secuirty of Israel by world support that must be the focus. It is suggested here that Edwards may be on that old train again, full of programmed dupes of conscience and argument that coincidentally is helping the parallel Cheney machinery just keep chugging toward the planned hit. Also, an opportunity was missed to make a courageous, perhaps politically suicidal, wiser assessment of the whole problem which no single coalition, set of interests or single strategy can hope to do anything except make worse to the endangerment of the entire world.

The world is not prepared to get united beyond crippling special interests(oil) to fairly deal with the whole or individual problems. The solutions enacted by any of those concerned are actively dangerous, foredoomed and abominable for the most part. If it is only an Israeli policy, Israel will cease to exist at least as the nation it now is. Oil is running out. Religious sectarianism will outlive everything except perhaps the spread of reason and prosperity. it is useless to contrinue the game of plastering threats to Israel and acting on big oil interests as the hidden first priority. It ALL has to be taken in hand by the entire world in the interests of all- without violence. This may be within Edwards concepts aside from the forum slant but this was an opportunity missed and a messy echo of past mistakes on everyone's part- including his- that do not bear support or repeating. By the excerpts he has gone overboard, in my book, in defending the wrong approach and Israel's "side" in doomed policies with violence as part of the "justified" recipe.

The world stage means you cannot speak one way to one live crowd and another to way to a different one without getting exposed. Consistent high wisdom is not emotionally easy or diplomatically effective to reach the small group, but someone vying for the highest office suffers from the slightest hint of pandering and regression no matter what particular group support he garners and ticks off the to-do list. Considering his greatest baggage among his progressive supporters this wounds a fragile trust while trying to soothe the Israelis- well on their road to violence against Iran WITH the WH collusion Edwards does not mention.

[Megahurtz]

64. That's Extremely Dissappointing.

See ya, Edwards.

[chookie]

66. Not a surprise

He was dumb enough to support Bush on Iraq, so why is it surprising that he will support Bush on Iran?

Most Democratic leaders support Bush on Iran. Funny how many Dems think this is the one thing he's right about. Go figure. Here we go again.

A regional war in the Middle East is inevitable. 2007-8 is going to unfold exactly like 2002-3. Except this time, Democrats will REALLY own a big piece of the disaster and won't be able to run against it. Ooops.

Come 2010, we'll be looking back on the Good Old Days when we were just stuck in the quagmire of Iraq.

[MasonJar]

68. I am surprised, playing right into Bushco hands!

[Critters2]

69. So he'll vote to attack, but he'll apologize for it later.

Why am I not surprised?

[2Design]

72. looks like he is buying into the BS again - voted last time for their BS too - n/t

[maryallen]

73. What a disappointment ...

And I thought he was shaping up to be an anti-war candidate ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. The MSM do not consider a candidate "serious" unless

he or she sucks up to the military-industrial complex.

Edwards is trying to earn his Seriousness Certificate.

I wish it were possible for a candidate to be considered "serious" without bowing to all the paranoid fantasies conjured up by the right-wing and establishment think tanks for the benefit of the Boys with the War Toys.

[eridani]

95. Bingo. And not just the MSM

Don't forget about the 1/3 of the population that supports Bush and thinks of war as a coming of age ceremony for men--sort of like Outward Bound but with dead bodies.

[teryang]

77. He just lost my vote

He's incompetent when it comes to foreign affairs. He's been taken in again, hook, line and sinker by the war mongers.

I guess a few years later, after WWIII has killed several millions, he'll say "I made a mistake, if I knew then what I know now, I would have decided differently."

It's pathetic really.

[Scurrilous]

81. Israel faces nuclear Holocaust warns Gingrich

Newt Gingrich: Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem facing mortal Iranian threat, says former US Speaker of the House; emphasizes 'three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356103,00.html

<snip>

"The Israeli people are facing the threat of a nuclear Holocaust, former US Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich warned the Herzliya Conference held by the Institute for Policy and Strategy at IDC Herzliya on Tuesday afternoon. Meanwhile, he said, the United States could lose a few million people or a number of cities to a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction.

Gingrich, who addressed the conference via satellite from the United States, said he thought Israel's existence was under threat again for the first time in 40 years.

"Israel is in the greatest danger it has been in since 1967. Prior to '67, many wondered if Israel would survive. After '67, Israel seemed military dominant, despite the '73 war. I would say we are (now) back to question of survival," Gingrich said.

He added that the United States could "lose two or three cities to nuclear weapons, or more than a million to biological weapons."

Gingrich added that in such a scenario, "freedom as we know it will disappear, and we will become a much grimmer, much more militarized, dictatorial society."

[IndianaGreen]

101. And you believe the asshole Newt Gingrich?

He is the same asshole that says we should sent a quarter million troops to Iraq and that Bush should use tactical nuclear weapons.

I suggest to read the dictionary definition of insanity!

[bushisdirt]

90. Edwards is gone for me also.

[Neshanic]

91. Like this is a big surprise. Edwards is not the person for the times we are in.

He's dragging aroud the War vote along with others, and frankly the usual suspects for president just will not make the grade.

We need and and I hope the person we need to run will come to the forefront in the next year.

[Imagevision]

94. Dems need to find a spiderman... to run for president!

[GeorgeGist]

96. I'm willing to believe you're serious, John...

so provide serious evidence.

No one knows better than you, that it was hearsay evidence that got your vote for the War on Iraq. And as a lawyer, you must appreciate the foolishness of that judgment.

[Spearman87]

97. Just posturing, maybe? I can believe he might

want "all options on the table" as part of a carrot/stick approach. I can't see him ever actually wanting to attack them. My hunch is that both sides of the aisle have had their fill for now of preemptive/preventative strikes

[RegimeChange2008]

98. Any candidate who favors continuation of this insane, genocidal, imperialist fascism

Will not get my vote. Neither will any candidate who believes they can fight a war in Iraq "better" than Chimpenfuhrer. If they use the phrase "war on terror" at all (and I'd rather they didn't) they had better be referring to defending THIS country. Not corporate fortunes or the delusional paranoia of a handful of right wing lunatics in another country.

[IndianaGreen]

99. Did John Edwards just get a campaign contribution from AIPAC?

"After opening his speech with great praise for former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Edward's continued to express great appreciation for the Israeli people and the special bond between the two countries, saying it was "a bond that will never be broken."

A dysfunctional relationship between two delusional nations is something that must really be broken if we are to survive as a species. America is self-deluted into thinking that she alone is the leader of an elusive "free world," while Israel's delusion is that a Supreme Being gave her a blank check to do as she pleases with her neighbors' lands.

Edwards is parroting the same failed policies that have kept America prisoner of Israel's land-grabbing policies, while at the same time carrying out a global war worthy of an Imperial Rome, not a Constitutional Republic.

George Washington, our nation's first President, warned the young republic against the dangers of foreign entanglements, while the Framers of our Constitution recognized the threat posed to the people by a large standing army. Americans need to take these warnings to heart, and return our nation to the republic for which so many died to keep free from tyranny, foreign and domestic.

[MN ChimpH8R]

107. That was my first thought when I read about this

Obviously he has drunk the AIPAC Kool-Aid. I'd liked JE before hearing this but I won't support him now. Is there any politician that AIPAC doesn't have snared in its poisonous tentacles?

[Freddie Stubbs]

120. No, he did not

AIPAC does not contribute to campaigns.

[superconnected]

102. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. I shall vote for Obama.

[jsamuel]

118. You think Obama would say differently?

I think not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

126. Obama was talking about a missile strike on Iran even BEFORE he was elected to the Senate

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[HuffleClaw]

104. 'its threats' ???!!!! holy kool-aid batman!

what a 'MORAN'*





really.

[NotGivingUp]

106. not a word about how iran is being provoked by the u.s.

[Scooter24]

122. I support John on this..

and I know I am in the extreme minority here.

I don't mind if Iran or even N. Korea develops Nuclear power for energy purposes. However, security measures must be in place to ensure that this power is being used for said purposes. I think we can all be in agreement here.

Furthermore, I'm 100% for diplomacy. But I'm not stupid enough to just sit around for months, maybe years, and watch Iran develop nuclear energy without IAEA supervision with only a "you'll just have to trust us" response from Iran.

And before some of you jump to conclusions, there are no parallels between the war in Iraq and a war with Iran. We went to war in Iraq on false pretenses. We have hard evidence with Iran.

I'm not sold on war with Iran today.

[Gasping4Truth]

127. You could not be more wrong

I don't mind if Iran or even N. Korea develops Nuclear power for energy purposes. However, security measures must be in place to ensure that this power is being used for said purposes.

Don't lump together Iran & North Korea. North Korea withdrew from the NPT, while Iran didn't and is still allowing IAEA supervision of its nuclear energy program.

But I'm not stupid enough to just sit around for months, maybe years, and watch Iran develop nuclear energy without IAEA supervision with only a "you'll just have to trust us" response from Iran.

Props to you for not being stupid. Then this hypocrisy won't be lost on you: Edwards made his statements on *Israeli* soil, a country that actually *did* what you falsely accuse Iran of. You want to find a country with land-grabbing religious nut-cases and a rogue arsenal of nukes? Look no further. It's exactly this threat that prompts Iran to rattle its IAEA cage. Other reasons are Pakistan's rogue nukes and NATO's nukes in Turkey (an NPT violation).

Enforcing more compliance to the NPT for all these countries *and* Iran would be waaaay way way more productive than this "Do as we say, not as we do" attitude of US political leaders, both Dem & Repug. See also my other post.

We went to war in Iraq on false pretenses. We have hard evidence with Iran.

What evidence?
Fool me twice ... :nopity:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. Apparently John Edwards thinks I'm stupid.

Because he thinks I'm worried about Iran.

Well, he'll have to work with somebody else's vote.

[KamaAina]

138. This is from *last Monday*. Hardly LBN.

It's already been discussed in excruciating detail here in the marketplace of ideas that is DU. You might try looking around in GD: Politics.

edit: colon in GD-P results in somewhat Freudian tongue smilie!