Should Democrats speak out NOW about their views on attacking Iran?

[welshTerrier2]

Poll question: Should Democrats speak out NOW about their views on attacking Iran?

You can hear the wardrums pounding louder and louder at the WH ... some believe the US is so "pinned down" in Iraq that an attack on Iran is not possible ... others believe it is "all war all the time" on the bush radio network ... as the drums grow louder and the pounding grows faster, Democrats need to decide what they believe is the right course for the country ...

The "issue", at least the issue identified by the WH, has primarily focussed on Iran's development of nuclear technology (be it for civilian or military purposes) ...

The poll question is, what role, if any, should Democrats play in the national dialog about attacking Iran if Iran continues to develop its nuclear technology??

Please elaborate on your thinking by posting a reply in addition to your vote in the poll ... thanks ...

[cquik18]

1. They were quiet as church mice about IRAQ!

Why the hell would the knee-pad Dems say anything about Iran?

2006...RE-ELECT NOBODY!!

[Tesha]

2. Should they? Yes. Will they? Probably not.

"It might hurt their chances of winning in 2008 if they're
perceived as being soft on terror."

(Heard that before?)

Tesha

[JAbuchan08]

3. I say lets allow Bush to define the "facts" first

and then react to the polling data :sarcasm: we wouldn't want to step on the Republican party's toes...

[lala_rawraw]

4. Speak out? How about NOT APPROVE MILITARY ACTION?

[nickshepDEM]

5. Id rather Israel attack Iran w/ USA co-coordinating...

the attacks from the sidelines. Strategic Air Strikes only, no ground invasion.

[Karenina]

6. WHY attack Iran???

:shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

7. what's your reasoning for this?

first, why do you think any country should attack Iran?
second, why should Israel attack with the US "co-coordinating"?

and the big question, on what basis do you think it is justified for one country to attack another country? what is known about Iran to show that it complies with the basis you propose?

[nickshepDEM]

8. A country that so obviously supports terrorism has no right

whatsoever to nuclear facilities. Not even for domestic energy use. I trust George W. Bush more than the Mullahs.

Edit: Im not advocating a strike against Iran right now, but if they refuse to halt Nuclear developments I would be open to Air Strikes on their Nuclear Facilities.

[AntiCoup2K4]

9. I don't trust George Bush, Ariel Sharon, OR the Mullahs!

All of them are terrorists, and I don't see any good coming from one terrorist striking another in a region that's already a fucking powder keg.

[Lecky]

10. What do you think about nations that fund terrorism?

*cough*

[welshTerrier2]

12. the Shah of Iran and selling weapons to Saddam ...

what's interesting is that it's OK in your view for the US (or Israel) to be the international enforcers ...

is this appropriate given that the US imposed the tyrannical Shah of Iran on the Iranian people and sponsored Saddam's tyranny for many years? Iran may indeed be guilty of many bad deeds but it's hard to see why the US should be allowed to reserve for itself the global powers of enforcement you advocate ....

[leesa]

27. The US and Israel are two of the biggest terrorists in the world.

Both are loaded to the teeth with nukes. What's your fantasyland point?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Gyre]

20. Why do you want to nuke Iran?

Perhaps you need to clarify your position.

Gyre

[nickshepDEM]

24. Ok, first let me say Im sorry for calling you an idiot.

No, I do not want to nuke Iran, but I would prefer to take out their nuclear facilities before they become fully functional.

Which do you prefer...

Taking out Iran's nuclear facilities or a nuke going off in the streets of Tel Aviv or downtown Manhattan?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

11. YES! For fuck's sake, yes!

Anyone who gets on board with any attack on Iran will never, ever, EVER get anything from me. I will not spit on them if they're on FIRE.

Opposition to any military action against Iran - WHICH HAS NOT ATTACKED US - must begin NOW!

[Copperred]

13. THE DLC WILL BACK ATTACKING IRAN

THEY SHOULD SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE DLC AND DETHROWN IT FROM THE PARTY

[Eloriel]

14. Which Democrats -- them or us?

The ones in Washington are probably for it, or at least not against it, but then maybe we should look at it, and then there's supporting our President, and perhaps Iran will have a nuclear weapon, and we can't just sit by idly....

you get the picture.

THEY will do nothing without us making a BIG stink, a very big stink and I think we'd either better get busy or just sit back and relax 'cause it'll happen no matter what we "want."

[omega minimo]

16. Seconding a Big Stink

and a revisitation to the national discussion that never occurred:

:wtf: When did we become a nation of preemptive warmaking?
-- for war profiteering?
-- now that the fact of the origins of this war are an open secret
-- how to leverage that on the Congress and the passive populace?
-- have them read the PNAC?

Folks aren't alarmed that the sabers being rattled are :nuke:?

[Copperred]

15. Raimondo today on us preping to attack Iran...

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6938


Frank Rich believes Bush "can't stay the course when his own citizens" refuse to go along, but that is nonsense: he can and will do exactly as he pleases. The constitutional provision assigning exclusively to Congress the power to declare war has long been a dead letter, killed by Harry Truman when he sent U.S. troops to Korea. Aside from a few old-fashioned conservative Republicans, the peoples' elected representatives uttered hardly a peep of protest. Just as Congress – aside from a few isolated, and heroic, cases – will stay silent today. As long as the Democratic party is successfully neutered on foreign policy issues by the neocon-influenced Democratic Leadership Council, the War Party will encounter no opposition on that front.

[Independent_Liberal]

17. They should speak now!

You know, speak now or forever hold your peace.

:)

[Pepperbelly]

21. A ground attack is out ...

No way he can do it with the armed forces as they exist today with the committments as they exist today. I doubt that the intelligence is sufficient to allow a surgical strike on nuclear weapon facilities IF they are in fact trying to make a nuclear device.

My understanding ot the non-proliferation protocols, Iran is doing exactly what is allowed under the NNPT. There would be no justification under international law for that reason alone.

[paineinthearse]

22. Have ANY Dems made public statements on attacking Iran

one way or another?

:shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

23. i doubt it ...

hey p.i.t.a. ...

i'm NOT aware of any statements by Democrats supporting or opposing an attack ... i believe several have stated there's no way we can "let Iran have nuclear weapons" and i've specifically heard Obama (during the Bolton hearings) talk about Iran's "meddling" in Iraq ...

but i have not heard, nor do i expect to hear, any Democrats "pre-empting" the WH on this issue ... they seem to prefer being "re-active" to being "pro-active" ...

perhaps they should reflect on the old saying: "vote early and often" ... if they want to have influence with the American people, if they want to demonstrate leadership and vision, if they want to be more than "not bush", the time to speak out is NOW ...

[leesa]

25. I don't think we need to worry about the Dems speaking out against war

Most of them seem to think it's a good idea.