FOX asked: Bush's comments preparing public for military action against Iran? Clark answered: "Yes"

[Tom Rinaldo]

FOX News had Wes Clark on as a commentator tonight on their wretched Hannity and Colmes show, and once again Clark scored some major points for Democrats on it, including major praise for Jim Webb. Here is the money quote though, and I say that not because it was clever or funny or cutting. I say that because it was truly chilling. I'll lead up to it with a little bit of prelude:


WES CLARK: We need to talk to the nations in this region. This Administration threatens Iran but won't to Iran. Allan my point is this. Why won't the most powerful nation in the world nit deign to speak to a country like Iran? You've got all the trump cards you need on Iran, can't we at least talk with them?

ALLAN COLMES: He (Bush) had some very strong rhetoric tonight about Iran, about the threat from Iran, about terrorists working with Iran. Do you think he is preparing the country for a possible military action toward that country?

WES CLARK: Yes I do. I think that the statements about Iran continue to ratchet up the pressure and lay the groundwork for taking action, and I think it's very dangerous."


Here is a link to a video of the whole interview, but be warned that Hannity acts like a real asshole when he joins in, though it is impressive to see Clark take and hit back all of the heat he tries to throw at him.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10678

Just click on the video screen that shows on the page once you are there in order to view the video.

[Imagevision]

1. The chance of Bush not provoking Iran into a fight is slim to zero!!!!

The second carrier group is already on it's way there -- two ships left Norfolk 10 days ago 2 more from San Diego - I believe this is what Bush means when he says give his plan a chance?!!

[Auntie Bush]

3. So that's why dumb-ass was so confident tonight.

He's laughing all the way to the podium. He's got a surprise for us up his sleeve. Well, we won't be surprised but the public will. We think things are bad now...but just wait till he leaves office and drops this load of sh** in the laps of the Democrats. He's evil enough to do it one purpose.

[ieoeja]

32. Just like his daddy in Somalia. n/t

[blm]

29. And they'll use Israel to do it and back this entire country into a corner because

of our alliance with Israel is unequivoal that we will defend them when attacked.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Oh Oh....the neocons are gonna be at his throat again!

Clark, get with the bipartisan chorus and just say....."Iran is a threat! We will not allow them to have nukes....and if they even act like they will, we will bomb them!"

I also noticed that all of the Democrats and many of the Repugs are now parroting his line...."let's talk to Iran and Syria"....but of course, he gets no credit! :eyes:

-------------------
Steve Clemons.....
"Last September at a conference I helped organize, General Wesley Clark began the drumbeat calling for direct contact with Iran. It seemed the least we could do before unleashing a wave of bombers."
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29624

-----------
From an appearance on Forbes on Fox from Oct 2005:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yeah, I think that, you know, we don't know whether Iran will cooperate, because we've not tried. But Iran has common interests, and I don't think you can contemplate moving ahead in the Middle East and staying in Iraq if you continue the policy of isolating Iran as they move toward a nuclear weapon. We're going to have a challenge with Iran. Let's face it, but let's talk before we use force on Iran.
http://securingamerica.com/node/284
------------

From Clark's Real State Of The Union Address January 30th 2006
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION on Capitol Hill: "The Real State of the Union 2006"

We should join now — right now - in opening new talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option.
-------------

General Wesley Clark on Fox News Sunday
March 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think the first thing that needs to be done, really, is the United States needs to talk directly to the leadership in Iran. That's the essential first step. The United States leadership hasn't done this.

-------------

General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
March 5, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term ...
------------

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Most Democrats are willing to say it, sure.

"We need to negotiate with Iran and Syria". What I want though is for them to say it like they really mean it, damn it!

I want them to turn almost every interview, every speech, into a chance to make this point, the way that Wes Clark has been doing for over a year. I want them to point out that the United States is the nation that has Iran surrounded, not the other way around, the way that Wes Clark does. I want them to describe what a war with Iran really would look like if we fail at diplomacy, and where that would leave us, the way that Wes Clark does. I want them to discuss the very real dangers inherent if we stay on a collision course with One Billion Muslims, the way that Wes Clark does.

If other Democrats are going to steal Clark's foreign policy suggestions, than the least they can do is steal all of them, not just the ones that sound sensible and simple in a sound bite. Now is when we need diplomacy, NOW. It is urgent, especially since so many in the Democratic chorus are so eager to also say that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. So if real diplomacy isn't tried, and Bush's intelligence sources report that Iran will soon get nukes, what happens then? Will they say, it'a a shame that diplomacy wasn't given a chance but war now is our only remaining option?

Failing to stop a war is not like failing to raise the minimum wage in one session of Congress. Failing to stop a war bankrupts our treasury, it kills our people, it kills their people, it kills people caught in between, and it can set off a revenge cycle that lasts a generation or more. Who else is willing to say that the Bush Administration is steering us right into a war with Iran. Who else is willing to be furious with this Administration for not negotiating with Iran now? It's not just how many troops are sent into or out of Iraq when, that is important now. Wes Clark understands what another war now would mean, and he knows now is the time to head it off, while alternatives to that war are still possible.

And Clark simply won't shut up about it, to which I can only say Thank You and God Bless you General Clark. Maybe, just maybe, our Party will listen to you in time, this time unlike last time.

[Iwasthere]

4. The memos need to come back out... showing what he will resort to ...

Painting planes to entice Saddam to shoot it down. Sick bast$#rd

[bling bling]

5. Wes has a way of making Hannity look like a fool.

No matter what Hannity tries to hit him with he just stays above it and looks calm, collected, and intelligent while Hannity looks desperate and manipulative.

[fuzzyball]

6. Iran is another UNNECESSARY war but why is it "dangerous"?

Iran will last no longer than 3 weeks. Iraq had a much
bigger military in Gulf War I and they barely lasted 1 week.
I think Clark is wrong on it being dangerous. It is just
another unnecessary price to pay in blood and treasure. But
don't see how Iran has the capability to attack United States.

[ArkySue]

8. 3 weeks???

Riiiight. That's what they said about Iraq. Rummy: 6 days, 6 weeks, but I doubt it will be 6 mos. And here it is, almost 4 years later. The war-mongering has got to stop.

[FrenchieCat]

10. And Iraq was gonna be a "cakewalk"...riiiiight....

Sure.....4 Star Rhodes Scholar General Clark is all wrong on this one, and you Fuzzyball are right! :sarcasm:

Here's what Clark says "IF" we were to do what you say is ok to do!

From Clark's Real State Of The Union Address January 30th 2006
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION on Capitol Hill: "The Real State of the Union 2006"

"We can strike hard enough to set back Iran's nuclear quest by many years, and take out much of their military capacity in the process. And we can at the same time protect most of the oil flow from Iran and deny their capacity to block transit through the Straits of Hormuz. But we also must recognize the possible consequences of this action: an embittered, vengeful Iran, seeking further destabilization of the region. Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran."
http://securingamerica.com/node/560


General Wesley Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto
January 25, 2006
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.

Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-

Neil Cavuto: I see.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-

Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-
snip
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'

AND....

General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
February 5, 2006

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.

And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.

They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.

LINKS FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE INTERVIEWS ARE FOUND HERE:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term ...

You are saying Clark's wrong on this one? This is the same Clark that said this about Iraq back in September of 2002!

"The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

we're going to have chaos in that region....; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it.

Then we're dealing with the longer mid term, the mid term problems. Will Iraq be able to establish a government that holds it together or will it fragment? There are strong factionary forces at work in Iraq and they will continue to be exacerbated by regional tensions in the area. The Shia in the south will be pulled by the Iranians.

The Kurds want their own organization. The Kurds will be hemmed in by the Turks. The Iraqis also, the Iranians also are nervous of the Kurds. But nevertheless, the Kurds have a certain mass and momentum that they've built up. They will have to work to establish their participation in the government or their own identity."

We've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must."
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/mining_and_finding_prescient_g.html

Yeah....let's just bomb...again! :eyes:

[fuzzyball]

16. Actually, Iraq WAS a cake walk, militarily. What is going on now is

a civil war between shia and sunni. Our soldiers are caught
between. We can not win or stop a civil war. The smartest
thing Bush could do is stop sending our young soldiers on
patrols. The only thing we can do is to operate as a quick
strike force when called upon for help by IRAQI military. If
Iraqi military can't stop the violence, then we need to get
the hell out of there.

And a GROUND war in Iran would be the ultimate folly. But a
nuclear armed Iran under control of Ahmedinejad is unacceptable
to Israel, our best ally in middle-east.

[FrenchieCat]

17. So maybe we need to get to talking to Iran.....

cause they sure have been talking to our big Oil Supplier and their new best friend, Venenzuela!

The point is Military force should only be used as a last, last, last resort. Anyone advocating anything else is warped!

[fuzzyball]

33. Military force should be used only as a defensive maneuver

and that includes open threats by the heads of government
as is the case with Ahmedinejad's threats against Israel
and US. If I was running Israel, I would be preparing for
a pre-emptive attack on iranian nukes. Unless I want to
take the chance on waiting for Iran to make the first strike.
I don't believe Israel is suicidal and they will take care of
Iran, unless there is a regime change in Iran in favor of the
moderates. US will be forced to back a steadfast ally which is
Israel.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

21. I no longer consider Israel a friend or ally

They are a dangerous state with nuclear weapons. They spy on us and co-opt people in our government to gather intelligence from us.

They are willing to manipulate our government (AIPAC) into acting against the best interests of people like you and me, by provoking this fight with Iran.

With a friend like this one, who needs an enemy?

[Jai4WKC08]

28. Nations are never friends, only allies when it suits both parties

All nations put their own interests first. You think we don't do the same things with our allies?

Israel is an ally. They have no choice, but honestly, they would be anyway. We share too much in common culturally. And mostly our interests are the same. It's up to us to recognize when they are not the same and act accordingly. You can't blame Israel if our leaders show bad judgment in protecting US interests first.

[fuzzyball]

34. I am with you on that POV....

but the stark reality is that we have a strong Israeli
presence in Washington lobby. There are many jewish politicians
who will always back Israel, and I can't blame them.

[Jai4WKC08]

27. No, it wasn't a cake-walk militarily

You cannot separate the combat phase from the post-combat phase. They are both critical to military success. That's something chickenhawks like Cheney and the Pentagon civilians either never understood, or didn't care about.

An air-strike on Iran will accomplish nothing good. We probably don't know where all the nuclear facilities are, and even if we do, they can just rebuild them. So maybe we delay them a few years. Maybe not, because maybe they buy the technology from North Korea or Russia.

But what an air-strike will accomplish is it will give Iran cause belli to attack US forces in the region, and Israel too. And the entire Islamic world, probably much of the rest of it, will support them.

If US forces in Iraq are directly attacked by Iran, you really think we wouldn't find ourselves in a ground war?

[fuzzyball]

35. Military operations in Iraq...post military victory....were an abomination

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abizaid, et all failed to see
the chaos coming. If I was the president, I would have
followed either of two paths. Either put in enough troops
to stabilize the country or get out. Rumsfeld tried to do
it on the cheap, with the corporate mentality he has, and
that is why we have the mess in Iraq. In the Kosovo war, the
Nato forces had a much much higher ratio of troops to rebels.

[Clark2008]

30. Our best ally in the Middle East is Jordan.

The Jordanian Police have done more to stop terrorism in the United States than Israel. Jordan thwarted two MAJOR terrorism plots - real ones - against the US since 2000: the Millineum terrorist attacks and another in March 2005.

Israel may "warn" us of things, but it's Jordan who stops them. I think that's infinitely more helpful. Plus Jordan doesn't use our money to spy on us.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Whoever our allies may or may not be

It is up to our government to act in America's interests, and if our government is wise, it will understand that acknowledging and helping to facillitate the legitimate national interests of other nations also, is also in our national interests.

But essentially this isn't a discussion about the actions of America's allies. This is a discussion of the actions of Americas government, and it is a discussion about how we may soon have many fewer allies and many more enemies if we stay on the current course.

[Clark2008]

38. True - mine was an "aside" comment. eom

[fuzzyball]

36. Amen to that.

I never liked Israel spying on us. Buy I am guessing
their spying was for the purpose of obtaining more secret
weapons from us than to harm us via a future attack.

[Zhade]

42. That civil war has been going on maybe a year, two TOPS.

What followed the illegal invasion was an illegal occupation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. So many ways to answer...

Do you really believe we can keep the nuclear genie at bay forever, by force and intimidation only? How is it exactly that Pakistan and North Korea got the bomb? What would happen if Iran and North Korea acted up at the same time? Do you really think those people don't know how to talk to each other and coordinate? Do you think that if the United States marches around the world militarily making more and more bitter enemies, that our security will be enhanced as a result? Did Israel's successful 7 day War eliminate the threat long term to Israel from it's neighbors?

Iran's navy may not be able to attack the United States, but they can cause major disruption in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes through which the world's oil lifeline flows. Al Quada didn't need it's own air force in order to attack the United States, and Al Quada was a small organization. If we attack Iran first we will firmly make them our enemy, including large sections of the Iranian public who would rather have avoided that inevitability. How many suicide bombers does it take to kill one hundred people? How much radioactive materials does it take to fashion a dirty bomb? Al Quada was a two bit organization compared to a technologically advanced populous nation like Iran.

Amd what do you think would happen with Hezzbulah and Israel if the United States attacks Iran? What would happen inside Iraq? What would happen in Indonesia and Pakistan if the United States attacks yet another Islamic nation? What would happen to the nukes that already exist inside Pakistan? How stable do you think that government actually is? How many generations will be raised in how many countries taught to hate America?

[fuzzyball]

14. Ok since you asked many good questions, I will attempt to answer

Pakistan got the bomb by A Q Khan's stealing of
design drawings from his European employer and then
buying the hardware through corrupt corporations in
Europe.

But Iran supposedly does NOT have the bomb, YET. So an
attack on Iran would be lot less dangerous now rather than
post-nuclear. Again I am as far from advocating an attack
on Iran as one can get. We are simply discussing possibilities
in a civil manner.

Any country with sufficient financial strength can acquire nukes.
There are X-Soviet nuclear scientists floating around on the market
for the right price.

Israel is still around and thriving because they WON the 7 day war.
If they had lost, their survival would have been doubtful.

Yes, Iran can disrupt the straits of Hormuz. But that would affect
China and Japan a heckuva lot more than United States. Our oil comes
from mainly from Canada, Mexico & Venezuela.

The attack if it happens, will be precision targeting of Iran's
nuclear infrastructure. It will not affect the Iranian public. In
fact there is a good chance the Ahmedinejad regime could topple
after such an embarassing destruction on their prized facilities.

US attacked Iraq, an islamic country. But not a single country came
to their aid. Not even Syria. Not Iran. Not Pakistan. Indonesia is
simply too far away and too prosperous to get involved in Iran.

Also, never ever forget, not a single GI was in Iraq on 911. So
another 911 can and will happen regardless of what US does. The
radical islamics don't care what US does. They will attack. Unless
ofcourse US adopts islam and sharia.

What exactly India attack to have 300 people murdered in Mumbai
commuter train attack? Whom did Bali attack to have their hotels
bombed? Same for islamic terrorists attacking atleast dozen other
countries. They will attack anyone who does not practice sharia.

As for the Iraq war, Iraqi military was defeated in a matter of days.
What is going on now is a civil war between Sunni & Shia. Al Qaeda who
is sunni, bombed the most sacred shia mosque and that started the bloodbath.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Thank you for your reply

There really is much to discuss, isn't there? The first point is that the bomb will spread as long as nations believe there is a real need to have it, and individuals will cash in on their knowledge of valuable nuclear secrets as long as there is greed. The more tension and hatred that is released into the world through military comflicts, the faster the bomb will spread, because the perceived need for it, and the pay off for greed to sell secrets regarding it, will increase. Every year there is more nuclear waste material prodeced to make bombs out of, much of it weapons grade, even if the facilities needed to purify uranium in any one nation get bombed. However Pakistan got it's bomb, now they have it, and they have a nation state that can produce on their own territory as many more as they choose to produce. North Korea was helped by the Pakistani nuclear program, and they in turn now can help others.

We are not about to militarily attack either Pakistan or North Korea, though war can still start in Korea, as Wes Clark has said, "by accident or miscalculation". It is generally understood how dangerous a chain of events would be touched off by an American military attack on North Korea. It is not pulling off the initial attack itself that is the biggest problem to our military. The primary danger for the U.S. in attacking North Korea now is not nuclear retaliation by them, it is conventional. It is a war that we do not want to set off.

And Pakistan is our Allie. Today Pakistan is our Allie. But there have already been several assasination attempts on Pakistan's current President, and the loyalty of many in Pakistan's intelligence community to him can not be taken for granted. American militarty intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has inflamed feelings inside of Pakistan. Iran was once called an American allie also, until the Shah was overthrown. An American attack on Iran would inflame feelings further, but to what degree? It is a very risky roll of the dice to gamble on.

Israel had to fight the 7 Days war, it was not an elective war. They had no choice and I understand and support that Israel needs to defend itself, and that was a prime example of just that. My only reason for bringing up the 7 days War was to point out that while a military objective may possibly be achieved quickly through the use of far superior forces, achieving security is much more elusive, and quickly achieving a military objective does not necessarily equate with ever achieving security. It is my opinion that cases exist where the opposite is true, and that attacking Iran may be one of them, short term military success can set back long term national security by crossing a red line of conflict that can cement and institutionalize hatred and conflict for one or more generations, in a time when it has been proved that it does not take a powerful and intact standing army to export death, destruction, and incredible financial costs to perceived adversaries in the world.

Yes we are speculating, you and I, everyone is speculating when it comes to something that has not yet happened. But I speculate along different lines than you when you say:

"The attack if it happens, will be precision targeting of Iran's
nuclear infrastructure. It will not affect the Iranian public. In
fact there is a good chance the Ahmedinejad regime could topple
after such an embarassing destruction on their prized facilities."

I speculate the exact opposite. I believe that an American military attack on Iranian soil against a nuclear program that the Iranian public feels pride over, that the Iranian public feels it is their sovereign right to have it they chose to, will have the opposite effect from what you predict regarding public sentiment toward the current regime. To me, what you postulate sounds like an Iranian version of "they will greet us with flowers in Iraq".

You wrote:

"US attacked Iraq, an islamic country. But not a single country came
to their aid. Not even Syria. Not Iran. Not Pakistan. Indonesia is
simply too far away and too prosperous to get involved in Iran."

When the United States attacked Iraq, there still was more residual sympathy toward the United States over 9/11 in Islamic nations, at least in the leadership of most of them. There still was more fear about the power of the United States military and America's capacity to move on and attack other nations who disagreed with us after we mopped up in Iraq. There still was some hope that the United States would restore order quickly inside Iraq and help that nation rebuild from over a decade of economic sanctions. Before the United States attacked Iraq there were not endless videos being broadcast throughout the Islamic world on satellite TV showing the suffering of IRaq's citizens in the wake of the American invasion. There were not those photos of Americans torturing Muslims in Abu Ghraib available for all to see.

It is not simply the current governments of Islamic nations that should be taken into account. It is the governments that will replace some of them if anger on the street leads to one or more of them to fall. It is angry people inside Islamic nations themselves who may be radicalized by an American attack on Iran that need to be considered, not just current governments. It is the breeding ground for the next generation of Al Quada organizations that must be considered also.

And while you point out that no American troops were inside Iraq at the time of 9/11, there were American troops in Saudi Arabia, and those who carried out 9/11 mostly came from Saudi Arabia. 9/11 happened although we did not actually invade Saudi Arabia, but 9/11 was the work of a relatively small group of people, and probably that is why. Had the United States attacked Saudi Arabia at some recent point I have no doubt that Al Quada would have become a much larger organization than it was at the time of 9/11.

You talk about extremist attacks inside of India (although you fail to note the extremist acts carried out by some highly nationalist Hindu mobs inside of India also), but there is a long standing conflict between India and Pakistan involving physical territory in the Kashmir that each nation has a claim on. The poor relations between the two nation states over a long period of time is a contributing factor, at the very least, to the spread of local terrorism, so again the actions taken or not taken by nation states contributes indirectly certainly, but directly at times also, to the spread of hatred and terrorism.

Regarding Iraq and your comment that "Al Qaeda who is sunni, bombed the most sacred shia mosque and that started the bloodbath." I would counter that what really started the bloodbath was America destabalizing Iraq through our invasion and poorly exectuted follow up to it. Again we agree that the U.S. military is excellent at achieving specific military objectives, it is the aftermath that gets messy. Al Qaeda would never have been inside Iraq to blow up that Mosque had it not been for the United States military action against Iraq. Events spun out of our military's ability to control it, and the same can happen in the aftermath of an American military attack on Iran.

Regarding economics, who is to say how dependable a supplier of Oil Venezuela will be if the United States attacks Iran? An alliance is growing between them. And do you think for a moment that Mexico will sell America it's Oil well below market prices in the case of a world Oil shortage, simply because they like us so much? And even if they did, do you think that the American ecomony is isolated behind our oceans and will not adversely be effected if there is a world wide economic shock brought on by a sudden word wide crisis of sharply reduced availability to Oil supplies?

The American military can take out any target inside of Iran that they are told to take out. That is not the issue. The same was true in Iraq. The American military however is not in a position to manage all of the long term chaotic aftermath of a military attack on Iran. The same was true in Iraq.

[Zhade]

43. "not a single GI was in Iraq on 911" - IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

Nothing. NOTHING.

[LittleClarkie]

12. No, Iran has the bigger, and better trained army, vs Iraq

iirc.

But it's not the conquest, but the aftermath that we can't handle. Another catastrophic success?

[fuzzyball]

15. A ground war with Iran would be the ultimate folly....

I can't believe Bush and the Neocons are that stupid.
But what may happen is surgical bombing of Iranian nuclear
infrastructure. It could happen. Israel is a close ally and
their lobby is one of the strongest. A nuclear armed Iran
under likes of Ahmedinejad is something Israel can never live
with. It will be taken care of. One way or the other.

[Bucky]

13. Thanks for making this point, Fuzzyball.

I disagree with Scott Ritter on the certainty of an attack on Iran (and with Clark on the intention of the Bushies to start a shooting war with Iran), but Ritter is dead on right when he describes what Iran's response would be to any action by us or Israel against them. They know our people are war weary and they would be determined to launch counter attacks that would make each and every one of us feel the economic crunch of war with them in a matter of weeks.

I suspect that's part of what Hugo Chavez of Venezuela talked with Abadinejad about when they met last fall. We don't get much oil from the Persian Gulf, but we get a LOT from Venezuela. The plan would involve hitting oil installations in Iraq, Kuwait, firing missiles at Israel that we simply can't shoot down, shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and certainly sponsoring a wide array of attacks on all US and US-friendly installations in Iraq.

Any attack would instantaneously reallign all of Shia Islam behind the superradical elements who control Iran.

One reason I think there won't be an attack on Iran is that there hasn't been any move made to evacuate all the American contractors from Iraq to protect Bush's buddies over there from Shiite reprisals. If I see news that US contractors are pulling out, then I'll expect an attack. Before that happens, all the warships Bush is sending into the region is nothing more than provocation and sabre-rattling.

Iran, as other posters pointed out, is not just a bigger country with a bigger army than Iraq's was in 2003... the very real possibility is that they would beat us in a short war and do so at an enormous economic cost to us and to Bush's corporate Gepettos.

[ContraCommando]

19. That’s a dangerous assumption that Bush might make

But don't see how Iran has the capability to attack United States.

Chemical, biological weapons including, perhaps, a weaponized version of smallpox - of which their old Soviet pals, now Russia, made plenty of. Dangerous enough, especially in the hands of religious fundamentalists who think that their country is about to be destroyed; and, I believe, that stuff is easier to make than traditional nuclear weapons.

[fuzzyball]

37. Islamic radicals will attack regardless of what we do....

We can lay down and play dead and they will still attack us.
They have been doing that in India for 1300 years. The only
people they will not attack are those who will follow sharia.

If you read history of India, the muslims invaded in the 9th century
and millions of hindu's were forced to covert to islam. The forced
conversions and slaughter of those who resisted stopped only when the
muslim rulers were militarily defeated by hindu warlords.

It is true that the true radical fanatics are a small minority of the
muslim population, in Iran and everywhere else. But if you think there
is some diplomatric or political peace treaty you can reach with them,
then you could'nt be more wrong.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Your view point is consistent and consistently critical of Islam

I am short on time, but my simple answer is this. We can find evidence of Catholics and Protestants killing each other over the centuries also, but there is no constant state of conflict in any of the ancient antagonistic relationships we may raise for discussion. Tensions wax and wane, blood shedding surges and receeds. Actions that are taken by various rulers of various nations at various times contribute to when tensions peak and when relative calm is restored. It is precisely that question of appropriate actions that we are talking about here now.

[fuzzyball]

41. With one major difference....christians do not go to heaven by killing

non-christians....atleast not according to the bible. Neither do
hindus, jews, budhists, jains, sikhs, or any other major religions.
But radical islamists believe differently. And there is the problem.
It has been so for 1300 years and it is not about to change.

And I am not critical of all muslims. The real radical FANATICS
are probably less than 2% of the entire muslim population. There
are 150 million muslims living in peace with non-muslims in India.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Not according to the Koran either, certainly not innocents

And while you are correct about the Bible, at various times, such as during the Inquisition, some Christians thought that God expected them to kill worshipers of Satan among others, often they were defined as "witches", usually meaning someone who did not worship the way that they did, and to disobey God's will and not execute them would condem a "ggod Christian" to Hell. While there is a technical distinction between the examples you and I gave, I am not sure if it is a meaningful one.

Let's say though that we agree that a tiny minority of Muslims are potentially dangerous fanatical extremists, as you say. We don't need to argue over whether that figure is 2% or .5% or .2%, they exist, that's enough for this point. What actions taken by nations in this world will increas both the ranks and intensity of these extremists, and what actions will reduce the same, that is a legitimate question of national security; for the U.S,, for Israel, for Jordon, for Syria, and for Iran as well to answer. Not all significant forces, even within Iranian society, want the power of the extremists to grow further. This is among Clark's concerns.

[fuzzyball]

47. In my observation, the radical fanatics grow in numbers when

there is money available to finance their attacks. The reason
Al Qaeda became a major force is because of Osama's multi-million
dollar wealth available to support training camps, support expensive
operation such as the 911 attack, and operate madrassas. Without
financial support the haters are basically powerless. There is never
a shortage of islamic jihadists wanting to go to heaven with 72 virgins.

Which is why Iraq and Iran are critical coomponents in war on terror.
These two countries have enormous oil wealth. Al Qaeda would like nothing
better than getting their hands on that wealth.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Good point

Al Qaeda has made great strides forward toward getting hold of at least some of Iraq's oil wealth since the U.S. initiated military conflict there. Prior to that they were shut out of Iraq. In fairness let me admit that there are no simple answers in the middle east, even the wisest policy can get blown out of the water by events there, but that of course is not a reason not to attempt to have the wisest policy possible anyway. I simply gravely question the wisdom of thinking that an American attack on Iran would increase anyone's security in the long term, and perhaps not in the relatively short run either. Certainly I think not enough effort is going toward alternative diplomatic approaches to deesculate from an approaching military show down now, which in my opinion could easily spin out of control down unintended and dangerous paths.

[IA_Seth]

22. WTF are you smokin?

Sure, the initial assault may be quick and to the point, but then what?

Don't tell me you think the aftermath of such an assault would be a cakewalk?

It's dangerous because it exposes more troops to more threats.
It's dangerous because it stretches an already thin military even further.
It's dangerous because it would make the Iraq war a regional war, with all that a regional conflict entails.
It's dangerous because it would most likely be unilateral, pre-emptive, and not sanctioned by any world bodies.

How can you say it is not dangerous?

[Jai4WKC08]

26. Don't forget

It would drive a million more Muslims into the al Qaeda recruiting office.

[fuzzyball]

40. An attack on Iran will be even messier than Iraq...but

a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel will be the most
destructive war the earth has ever seen. Israel will then
retaliate causing killing of entire Iranian population.
Which is why I wish Ahmedinejad would shut up and stop making
threats on Israel and their supporter, US of A.

Can you imagine the head of a government making threats to
another country that they will soon be destroyed? That is
exactly the rhetoric coming from current regime in Iran.

The sad part is that if Israel feels threatened with nukes in
the hands of those who do not even believe in holocaust, US will
be dragged into the mess whether we like it or not.

[Zhade]

44. IRAN. DOES. NOT. HAVE. NUKES.

Ahmedinejad does not control the military.

This has been repeated many times on this board. Please inform yourself. Iran does not currently have the capability to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Maybe in ten years, but not at this time.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. Please take a course in Iranian geography and history of the region.

Or just go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6135

[fuzzyball]

7. duplicate post

self deleted

[Eurobabe]

18. I also heard same analysis on Washington Post radio today

I don't remember who it was, but as I was driving past DC on the way to Virginia. They said another battleship is on the way to gulf. Bush is goading Iran, and won't open dialogue.

What is this that I hear Edwards hasn't ruled out action on Iran? I nearly crashed the car when I heard that.

Wes ought to know, he sees the trend with Bush.

[dogman]

20. Edwards doesn't understand diplomacy.

He is right to say nothing is off the table, but doesn't understand that how you set the table is important. Front and center on the table is diplomacy. Off to the side is the threat of force, set behind incentives and mutual understanding. Just as he dealt with Iraq by supporting w, he once again speaks without understanding the power of words. A large part of the present problems with Iran derive from w identifying Iran as part of the axis of evil. You cannot negotiate reasonably by starting a confrontation. Of course the chickenhawks are always bold with the lives of others.

[Jai4WKC08]

24. Not only hasn't he ruled it out

Edwards went so far as to say we cannot allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. That not only puts military action on the table, it says he would exercise the military option if Iran won't back down.

Clark at least has said we need to consider under what conditions could we co-exist with a nuclear-armed Iran. He is quick to point out we managed with a Soviet Union that had many thousands of nuclear missiles pointed right at us, as well as a leader who said "We will bury you." Still we talked to them, kept our embassies open, eventually exchanged scientists, artists, students, etc.

Clark believes the Iranian people, like the Soviet Russians, want more openness and opportunity. That in time, they will get rid of their extreme anti-Western leaders. But it has to be their own way, in their own time, with an end result that suits their own needs. He also says the hostile rhetoric from our government only makes Ahmedinijadh and the mullahs stronger, and if we attack, the Iranians will do whatever they can to defend their country.

[sakabatou]

25. Hoo-boy...

[Jai4WKC08]

46. The really scary part

Is that Clark has been proven right over and over and over again. Even when they called him "loony" for it, he has always been proven correct.

We're gonna attack Iran. I'm sure of it. And Bush won't wait for Congressional approval. He'll say he's protecting our troops from Iranian IEDs or some such nonsense. All within his right as commander-in-chief