DLC...: While direct US talks with Iran may help Iraq..misconduct demands more forcefu respopnce

[Flabbergasted]

Talking to Tehran

The conversation may be a tad stilted, but the United States and Iran did start talking to each other over the weekend in Baghdad at a Middle East conference on the future of Iraq. That's potentially good news.

For all of Iran's meddling in Iraq, American and Iranian interests in that country point in the same general direction. Both want to see the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government prevail over a mostly Sunni insurgency that includes die-hard Baathists and al Qaeda terrorists. And while Tehran undoubtedly would like to create Hezbollah-like client groups among Iraqi's Shia, it also has to be careful not to provoke a military confrontation with the United States or intervention by neighboring Sunni states. So it's at least conceivable that Washington and Tehran could work out a modus vivendi to avoid confrontation in Iraq.

But let's not get carried away. Iran still poses a major threat to global stability, regional peace, and U.S. interests. Tehran's serial defiance of U.N. mandates to stop developing nuclear weapons capabilities is a major challenge to the world's nonproliferation system. And its strong financial and material support for Hezbollah and Hamas makes it the number one state sponsor of Middle East terrorism.

Iran's intransigence demands a firm response from the international community, not just the United States. Make no mistake: keeping the lid on nuclear proliferation, stopping terrorist attacks on U.N. member states, responding to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic threats to destroy Israel -- these are matters of collective security.

After all, the United States is hardly the only country deeply alarmed by Iran's behavior. Israel has made it clear it cannot for long accept a violently rejectionist regime with nuclear weapons that is deeply involved with its terrorist enemies on its very borders. And Iran's bid for regional dominance, along with its championship of Shi'a aspirations, are deeply troubling to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Sunni Arab states with sizeable Shi'a minorities.

So while direct U.S. talks with Tehran may prove useful in stabilizing Iraq, the broader pattern of Iranian misconduct demands a more forceful response from the international community, including:

more...

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=254217

[wyldwolf]

1. Are you posting this as a public service? I agree with everything there

[Flabbergasted]

7. I wasn't stating an opinion.

[Morgana LaFey]

10. It's a shame you can't spend more time at DU studying the issues

then.

Iran is no threat. Iran is just the next target of the PNAC crowd, the imperialist, global domination freaks who want everyone's oil.

[wyldwolf]

12. Yeah, I'm actually using other sources than DU. Imagine that

Iran is a threat.

[Morgana LaFey]

17. Well, I'd just LOVE to see some documentation on that.

If you HAD any, of course.

[wyldwolf]

18. You're not paying attention.

But I'll make you this promise. Any Democrat elected in '08 (Kucinich included) is aware of the threat and will have to deal with it. DU is going to be full of apologists and revisionists then.

[Morgana LaFey]

20. Ah, just as I thought. NO documentation.

Got it.

[wyldwolf]

24. What documentation do you want? TIME? WAPO? CNN?

On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium — a key component of advanced nuclear weapons — near Natanz. But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Iran's President Ahmadinejad has stated there can be no compromise on Palestine and that Israel is a "disgraceful stain" that must be removed from the Islamic world...

[Morgana LaFey]

74. Unnamed "diplomatic sources" doesn't cut it.

We've all seen the IAEA's work mischaracterized (aka: LIED about) before.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad has stated there can be no compromise on Palestine and that Israel is a "disgraceful stain" that must be removed from the Islamic world...

That's been debunked as a rather disgraceful mischaracterization of what he actually said.

Look, I'm sure you could probably come up with an armful or more of highly questionable sources. Hey, has Judith Miller been writing about this lately? The problem is, this administration and these publications do NOT have a good track record for accuracy on this subject. They have a track record of supporting and pimping for the Bush administration. If you're willing and ready -- nay, eager, from the looks of it -- to buy the same old lies that got us into Iraq, you're on your own. You'll never convince me, and there are a lot of others who learned that lesson as well.

These are lies, Wyldwolf. The challenge will be in finding an authentic source that we can both agree on is valid and real.

I don't think you can, and in the meantime, as I already alluded, I don't accept the Bush Administration's bald-faced, lying propagada.

[wyldwolf]

75. I get it. You ask for sources. If I provide them, they're discredited as "lies" with no...

... counter sources to back the "lie" claim.

[Morgana LaFey]

107. See Post #79 nt

[Morgana LaFey]

79. Here -- educate yourself

this is just my A list:

21:53 2/28/2007
Bush Faces Opposition on Iran Attack
A number of U.S. military leaders, reportedly including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have waged an extraordinary behind-the-scenes resistance to what they fear is a secret plan by George W. Bush to wage war against Iran.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x312495
Link: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/022807Parry.shtml

17:18 2/26/2007
UK Telegraph: US IS FUNDING TERROR GROUPS IN IRAN TO CREATE CHAOS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x288337
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml
and: http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=2/26/2007&Cat=2&Num=015
17:19 2/25/2007
The Telegraph.co.uk is all over the impending Iran attack, multiple stories...LINK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x280238
Link: http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fmain.jhtml%3Fxml%3D%2Fnews%2F2007%2F02%2F24%2Fwiran24.xml

Forget The Coup Talk For A Moment, The Generals Are Sending A Message Here !!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x284106

Sy Hersch: Iran War Already Underway (to distract us from Iraq)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x265241
Link: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh

CrooksAndLiars Has CNN/Hersch Transcript And Video Now !!! (Link)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x286114
Link: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/25/seymour-hersh-negroponte-iran-contra-fundsoh-my
article: http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh

15:26 2/25/2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x283341#284657
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x284187
Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

BBC - US 'Iran Attack Plans' Revealed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2737402
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

Neocons Have Been Planning For War With Iran For Long Time
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x243124
Link: http://www.alternet.org/story/47921 (Larisa Alexandrovna)
Timeline: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb07/Leupp18.htm

Iran: a Chronology of Disinformation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x234988
Link: http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02172007.html

Why Did Rove Request A Copy Of A Secret Iranian Proposal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x229665
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3117214
Link: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/rove-iran
Rove Said to Have Received 2003 Iranian Proposal
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36609

16:38 2/15/2007
New bill to forbid covert action against Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x219585
Link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110NKgBAs

22:23 2/14/2007
liar liar condi's panties are on fire. Fmr Aide: Rice Misled Congress On Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x213827
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070214/pl_nm/iran_usa_dc

00:32 2/13/2007
Last summer's Israel - Hezbollah/Lebanon war: WH involved in planning (test case for Iran)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x234988
Link: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

Stop This: No-Name Allegations, Sourcing Identify US Officials Presenting Disputed Evidence
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x188422
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eason-jordan/stop-this-now-noname-al_b_40967.html

00:09 2/13/2007
Former Bush Official Warns the US Is Baiting Iran Into a War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x191241
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek

Larisa Alexandrovna: "Propaganda Extravaganza" (Critiquing the WH Iran Briefing)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x188092
Link: http://www.atlargely.com/2007/02/propaganda_extr.html

23:41 2/12/2007
Top American General (Pace) Disputes US Military Claim on Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2727586
Link: http://voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm

23:25 2/12/2007
U.S. Forces Almost Ready For Iran Air Strike, Say Sources
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x262361
Link: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/02/11/2003348506

19:06 2/11/2007
Juan Cole: NYT Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges -- Repeat of Judy Miller Scandal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x262426
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x183871
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3106808
Link: http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/nyt-falls-for-bogus-iran-weapons.html
also see: Breaking news from Baghdad - PROOF!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x180949

11:37 2/3/2007
Where is the EVIDENCE that Iran threatens the US.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x111974
Link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070202_where_is_the_evidenc.htm

Operation Ajax! (Deposing the head of Iran in 1953 to install the Shah)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x118966
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Evidence Grows That White House Planned To Release Cooked Intel On Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x174844
Link: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/10/iran-cooked-intel/




*** Report: Bush May Have Declared "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3099549
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3100354
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3100202
Link: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001869.php

Amanpour is reporting that the Iranian story is skeptical
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x87005


19:47 2/4/2007
Vanity Fair: From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x261075
Link: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703

Scott Ritter On War With Iran ...( 20 min Interview) ......
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x114241#114313
Link: http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/260/57/

18:52 2/3/2007
John Pilger: Iran: The War Begins -- Must read.
n fact, Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon, nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest. Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations - until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x260932
Link: http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/300/2

14:19 2/2/2007
Iran war following "a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran " ((("Blamed"))) Carter Adviser ( Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski Feb 1, 2007. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x107654#108733
Link: http://tinyurl.com/35zj6t

19:01 2/1/2007
Bush Administration "Postpones" Publishing EVIDENCE of Iranian Interference in Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x99476#99887
Link: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/take-your-quarrels-elsewhere-bush-told/2007/02/01/1169919474255.html
and: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

Oct 2006
British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8321
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html

21:17 1/19/2007
U.S. plans envision broad attack on Iran: analyst
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2695920
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iran_usa_experts_dc_1

BR has been planning the invasion of IRAN since 2003 (MOrtos worked in Iraq and saw maps)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3108489#3108542

*** Report: Bush May Have Declared "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3099549
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3100354
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3100202
Link: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001869.php


Larisa Alexandrovna: Behind the Administration's six-year-push towards war with Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x37694
Link: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Iran_The_Road_to_Confrontation_0123.html

[wyldwolf]

81. none of this alters the fact that Iraq is a threat to the region

Obama says yes. Clark says yes.

You're trying to frame this discussion as an advocacy for war instead of an admission that Iran is a threat that has to be dealt with.

[randycrow]

99. A Neocon led USA is a threat to Iraq, Iran, and the American people

Two planes knocked three building down Sept. 11. There was no killing going on in Iraq and Iran before a Neocon led USA arrived. John Negroponte and James Steele built the death squads and the Mehdi Army. Al Sadr is a 28 year old idiot who has fled and has had basically nothing to do with the Mehdi Army. Israel is armed to the hilt with nukes and invaded Lebanon and Holocaust ed it and a few Internet articles at the time stated it was Israel with a well trained suicide squad which crossed over in to Lebanon and started the shooting just as the British poached in Iranian waters to draw fire. High oil prices is the name of the game as the Neocons make financial war on Americans. The USA pack up and really leave, Negroponte's death squads and the mercenaries gone, 20,000 thousand or so of our brave soldiers left at the bases, this region would quiet down very quickly.

[Morgana LaFey]

106. Huh?

I quote YOU on the subject:

none of this alters the fact that Iraq is a threat to the region

versus: admission that Iran is a threat that has to be dealt with


What, exactly, are you arguing? I'm totally lost, and I suspect that's because I'm trying to follow YOU.

You're trying to frame this discussion as an advocacy for war instead of an admission that Iran is a threat that has to be dealt with.

I'm not trying to "frame" the discussion as anything other than NO: IRAN IS NOT A THREAT TO THE US. I don't think there's any valid evidence, or even valid circumstantial evidence that that's the case. That's why I asked YOU for documentation. What I DO know that the Bushies and PNACers have it bad for an attack on Iran, and have had for many years now, just as they did for Iraq and here we go again. It's all the same type of bullshit, same flavors, as gpt fed to us at the run-up for Iraq.

[randycrow]

96. I love you

[Morgana LaFey]

108. !

:loveya:

Welcome to DU!

[Flabbergasted]

27. To whom?

[wyldwolf]

29. to the region

Any country in the Middle East who says there can be no Palestinian compromise, who says Israel is a disgraceful stain that Iran will eliminate, and is building nukes to do it, is a threat.

[Flabbergasted]

30. Israel is capable of taking care of itself and frankly that is none of our business.

[wyldwolf]

31. but still a threa to the region, no?

France... Spain ... England.. Europe... capable of taking care of themselves in WWII.

[Flabbergasted]

32. Get real. And Iraq was such a threat too. That's why they voted against invading?

[wyldwolf]

34. this isn't about Iraq. We cannot hold Iraq up as an example everytime...

... a threat emerges.

But don't worry. It will be a Democratic president who'll have to deal with Iran. Even the more "progressive" ones in the race know it.

[Flabbergasted]

36. There is an option here. Just like there was an option before.

Iran was quite sympathetic to the US after 911. They have offered direct talks to the US. Bush rejected this and now we are supposed to accept "his solution" to the "threat" when after he rejected every option so far. I do not accept Bushies solutions to problems. We have seen the results of Bushies "options". No Bush. No to war without end.

If you are trying to justify this was you should really be ashamed.

[wyldwolf]

37. there certainly is

The options are laid out.

* Tougher penalties for violating rules against nuclear proliferation. The next step is for the U.N. Security Council to craft stronger economic and political sanctions against the regime, targeted wherever possible at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which runs Iran's nuclear complex as well as its covert aid to radical groups in the region. This will put Russia and China on the spot, but there's no hope of shoring up the world's crumbling non-proliferation regime if these two powers routinely put their commercial interests over collective efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

* Effective diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force, which the United States must supply as a substitute for what will otherwise be a perpetually on-the-brink-of-war conflict between Israel and Iran, alongside the possibility of growing rivalry between Tehran and Sunni Arab states.

* Transatlantic efforts to engage Iranian society and stand with Iranian dissidents and reformers. There are already signs of a domestic backlash against Ahmadinijad's outward belligerence and neglect of Iran's mounting economic woes. Iran's youthful population also seems increasingly impatient with the ruling mullahs and expresses strikingly favorable attitudes toward America. We should work with our European allies especially to nurture Iranian aspirations for openness, pluralism, and democracy. This doesn't mean giving opposition groups money -- they don't need it and it would only discredit them. It means offering moral and political support to reformers working for human rights, womens' equality, and greater openness and political pluralism.

* A serious push to forge a "grand bargain" with Iran. Tehran would have to suspend its fuel enrichment program, submit to intrusive international inspection and end covert military and financial support for terrorists groups in the Middle East. The United States would recognize Iran, normalize diplomatic relations, forswear "regime change," lift political and economic sanctions against the regime, and work with the international community to assure Tehran access to fuel for civilian nuclear power. This would certainly be a deal worth having, but it should be negotiated within an international framework that includes the world's leading powers and the United Nations.

[Flabbergasted]

39. Lets take #1 then move on. What does most of the international community consider

the "nuclear Energy" deal signed into law last year with India. This is the one where a non signatory country was given technology and capability to vastly increase their nuclear weapons program. This was considered to be a breach of the non-proliferation treaty by most of the developed world. Now let us consider Pakistan. Pakistan was left out cold on the deal leading them to work for a stronger arsenal.

Saudi Arabia is as we speak developing their own nuclear program.

"Israel doesn't real have a nuclear program" despite having a vast armory.

Its quite easy to make vain statements about Iran when you refuse to view the bigger picture.

[wyldwolf]

42. OK

Which country is play is declaring there can be no compromise on the biggest Middle East issue and stating Israel is a stain in the region that must be removed?

Hint: It ain't Pakistan, India, or Saudi Arabia.

[Flabbergasted]

44. I told you "not our business Israel can take care of itself." BTW it was a vain threat. It is

strengthened however with out war-mongering.

[wyldwolf]

46. and I told you Europe wasn't our business in WWII... right?

[Flabbergasted]

47. We were attacked by a specific enemy. In this case we were attacked by a cause which we

strengthen with our very actions.

[wyldwolf]

49. we were attacked just the same

The Japanese claimed our very actions caused them to attack us in WWII.

[Flabbergasted]

51. Can you provide any evidence that the US has ever been directly threatened

verbally or in writing by either the country or Iran or Iraq that should constitute an act of war or increased aggression.

[wyldwolf]

55. I've not claimed the US has been directly threatened... but you know that.

... and you're clearly back peddling. The US has seldom been directly threatened. The tragedy of WWII was waiting until that time came.

[Flabbergasted]

62. This is the pre-emptive war argument. Are you saying that pre-emptive war is effective?

Not backpeddling buddy.

[wyldwolf]

63. no one, not even the DLC, has made a pre-emptive war argument, "buddy" (LOL!)

Got a source for that?

[Flabbergasted]

68. By implying that Europe is Threatened by Iran (Which it is not) and likewise implying

that we need to do something about it (Which is also false) you are also implying that we will need to attack Iran before they attack Israel or Europe (Another silly argument).

[wyldwolf]

69. Where have I implied Europe is threatened by Iran?

[Flabbergasted]

70. "but still a threa to the region, no?

France... Spain ... England.. Europe... capable of taking care of themselves in WWII."

[wyldwolf]

72. did you not recognize the WWII analogy that I clearly spelled out?

[Flabbergasted]

78. Ok

I missed that detail but the actual argument doesn't change if we apply Israel instead of Europe.

[wyldwolf]

80. right. My argument does not change

There were "those" in the 30s who felt Germany was no threat to the US. "Let Europe take care of themselves," they whined. You would have been anti-Roosevelt in those days. He wanted in much earlier than we got in.

[Flabbergasted]

85. Neither does mine. Iran is not a threat. We could, as an international community

solve this crisis with not nearly the death, destruction, and violence that you are suggesting.

Iran is not Nazi Germany.

Iran will die as a military threat if we stop pushing them.

Iraq with UN help will once again become a counterbalance to Iran.

Our presence is a hinderance to this process.

I cannot grasp how you are taking your position and not realize that you yourself are the problem.

[wyldwolf]

86. your counterparts in the 1930s said the same thing

In fact, they always do.

hint: The DLC's plan calls for an international community to solve the issue, and one did such in WWII. Yet, there were those who insisted the US be isolated.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Flabbergasted]

94. Using propaganda to influence a population to attack an enemy that poses no threat.

Just like you.

[wyldwolf]

95. Using the President of Iran's own words

how... terrible?

[randycrow]

100. BS - We were not attacked Sept. 11

Fraud - 3 buildings went down, two planes, building were demolished with bombs - inside job. 80 percent of the American people do not believe Sept. 11 happened the way the 911 Commission said it happened. any reference to Sept. 11 as a reason to attack Iran is bunk.

[Donna Zen]

52. We cannot bomb Iran

and be successful in the region. I'm shocked that you don't understand that. We do control things that the Iranians want and need. But hey, why bother when you can just start another avoidable war. Bomb them. And then what? Are they going to give up and be our friends?

There is a flaw in this DLC piece of crap. We do not want the Shi'ites to win, unless we're ready for the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis. Maybe you DLCers don't give a damn about the Sunnis, but lots of other Sunnis do, and they control the moderate surrounding countries.

We can hold up Iraq as an example of the DLCers getting it wrong.

[wyldwolf]

56. Who here has advocated bombing Iran?

[Donna Zen]

58. All you know is force

and all you know is the DLC "meaty" foreign policy. How's that working out?

This is a complex situation, thinking of Iran in your terms will get us nowhere fast.

[wyldwolf]

60. We're talking about Iran, so show me an example?

[Donna Zen]

71. They are as dismissive of diplomacy

as O'Reilly. I guess if you like war, that is how you see the world. Hell, the DLC believes invading Iraq was the thing to do, bush just did it wrong.

[wyldwolf]

73. they're plan is all about diplomacy... or didn't you read it?

[Donna Zen]

76. Of course I read it.

The plan constantly paints Iran in the same terms the bush administrations uses: evil bad guys. It finds diplomacy cute but basically doubts its effectiveness because Iran is eeeevil. Instead they want to be sure we've got plenty of force on the table. And I'm telling you that you cannot bomb Iran no matter what the goons at the DLC think.

The way out of this mess will found at the diplomatic tables. We can do that, but only if we change our attitude...and it better be done quickly.

[wyldwolf]

77. quote examples of them being dismissive of diplomacy

[randycrow]

101. We want the Shiites to win

Shiites are non communi$t$ - Sunni are communi$t$. Sunni cleansed Shiites. Shiites have called for peace and there will be peace if the Neocons stop backing Saddam Hussein Sunni Baathist communi$t$.

[ProudDad]

109. The only country with nukes

in the Middle-East is Israel...

Israel is arguably the most destabilizing force in the region next to the U.S. of A.

Iran isn't even in the running...

[Lerkfish]

2. Iran's "meddling" in Iraq? wtf are WE doing there?

screw you DLC, stop throwing gasoline on the fire.

[madfloridian]

3. War war war....terror terror terror...jihadism, jihadists....terror

.

[AtomicKitten]

4. The US needs to get the hell out of the Middle East.

Period.

[wyldwolf]

5. a more forceful response from the international community, including:...

1. Tougher penalties for violating rules against nuclear proliferation. The next step is for the U.N. Security Council to craft stronger economic and political sanctions against the regime...

2. Effective diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force, which the United States must supply...

3. Transatlantic efforts to engage Iranian society and stand with Iranian dissidents and reformers. There are already signs of a domestic backlash against Ahmadinijad's outward belligerence and neglect of Iran's mounting economic woes. Iran's youthful population also seems increasingly impatient with the ruling mullahs and expresses strikingly favorable attitudes toward America. We should work with our European allies especially to nurture Iranian aspirations for openness, pluralism, and democracy.

4. A serious push to forge a "grand bargain" with Iran. Tehran would have to suspend its fuel enrichment program, submit to intrusive international inspection and end covert military and financial support for terrorists groups in the Middle East. The United States would recognize Iran, normalize diplomatic relations, forswear "regime change," lift political and economic sanctions against the regime, and work with the international community to assure Tehran access to fuel for civilian nuclear power.

Aside from altering #2 to include a true coalition, how many on DU seriously thinks no current candidate running for president (including Kucinich) would not agree with the above?

... unless you don't think Iran is a problem.

[randycrow]

102. Iran is not a problem

unless you are a communi$t on the side of Saddam Hussein Sunni Baathist communi$t$. Making war on Iran is the same as making war on the people of the USA financially. The only thing that is going to come of a war with Iran is much higher gasoline prices. Neocons manipulating war to hyper inflate oil prices is not new. Neocons did it in 1973 and 1978. War to get gasoline prices up to transfer the wealth from the USA Middle Class to the Neocons is an old Neocon oil trick.

[ProudDad]

110. Oh, all that stuff worked SO WELL

all of the other times the U.S. has screwed around with Iran's internal affairs...

"3. Transatlantic efforts to engage Iranian society and stand with Iranian dissidents and reformers. There are already signs of a domestic backlash against Ahmadinijad's outward belligerence and neglect of Iran's mounting economic woes. Iran's youthful population also seems increasingly impatient with the ruling mullahs and expresses strikingly favorable attitudes toward America. We should work with our European allies especially to nurture Iranian aspirations for openness, pluralism, and democracy."

As for:

Number 1 -- How about Israel, India and Pakistan - they actually HAVE nukes? Iran is at best 5 years away.

Number 2 -- Why the U.S. to "supply the threat of force"? The world would be better of in every way if the U.S. cut it's war budget by 3/4 and learned how to join with the rest of the world in diplomatic efforts...


Number 4 - A good idea. Why not just stop there?

[SaveElmer]

6. Yeah I'm not sure why you are posting this...

I see very little there to quibble with...

And in fact, it is exactly these steps that we criticize W for not taking in Iraq...

[Flabbergasted]

8. I thought it was interesting. Is that a problem? nt

[SaveElmer]

9. No...not at all...

But typically when things from the DLC are posted here by folks that don't usually like anything they say, one is naturally suspicious...

But I am glad you posted it!

[Morgana LaFey]

11. Who funds the DLC?? This explains EVERYTHING, or nearly.

Who Funds The DLC??
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x173238

[SaveElmer]

14. Same folks that also fund...

Nearly every Democrat in Congress...DLC or not!

[Morgana LaFey]

16. The best way to control the opposition is to

lead it ourselves. -- Lenin

I think you're wrong, first of all, but if you aren't and it's okay with you, then maybe the Democratic Party isn't the place for me. I'm expecting people with standards and values. For starters.

[wyldwolf]

19. I would say that is the best thing you've said all week

maybe the Democratic Party isn't the place for me. I'm expecting people with standards and values. For starters.

We need less people with unrealistic expectations. Perhaps the Greens will open their arms to you.

[Morgana LaFey]

21. Well, if one of us were to leave, I vote it be you.

So there.

[wyldwolf]

25. seems you're the only one threatening to.

[randycrow]

103. Pretty flower, I vote with you

With Democrats like you, who needs Neocons.

[ProudDad]

111. Now there's some goddamn bad news!!!

"Same folks that also fund Nearly every Democrat in Congress...DLC or not!"

And that's worked so freakin' well for us.. :sarcasm:

[mmonk]

13. The same disease exists in both parties.

We need to break those influences and the money think tanks that drive it. Be sure to know your candidate's position on global dominance and preventive war theory

[Solon]

15. "Iranian Misconduct"?

Are we supposed to forget American misconduct in destabilizing the region? Also, what "American Interests" need to be protected? As far as I know, the U.S. does NOT claim ANY territory in the region, so should BUTT OUT of the region entirely. Why the fuck should the United States even talk to Iran, why would they listen to a nation that terrorized their population for 50 years?

What we should do is put economic and political pressure on the two largest wildcards in the region, Israel and Iran and force them to BOTH to talk to each other, and bring in the rest of the nations there. And when I mean pressure, I mean real pressure, not just words, but start cutting off aid to any nation that balks at such talks. I don't see how we can negotiate with any nation in the Middle East in full faith when we have an atrocious record with dealing with the nations there in the first place.

[Clarkie1]

22. This is the wrong approach.

We need to approach diplomacy with Iran not just from the standpoint of our interests in Iraq.

I'm very disappointed in this.

[wyldwolf]

26. what is wrong with the approach?

[Clarkie1]

33. It's unbalanced and incomplete, and doesn't have enough carrots.

"The focus of this conversation should be on providing a future vision for the region, taking into account national and sectarian insecurities and sensitivities, and acknowledging the de jure legitimacy of the existing regimes. While the Saudis and other interlocutors with the Iranians have been helpful, a more direct conversation will accelerate both the application of pressures and the development of the kinds of positive inducements—recognition, admittance to international organizations, resumption of economic relationships, and a regional security structure—that may be necessary for Iran to see the overwhelming advantages of giving up its nuclear weapons programs.

<snip>


"The United States is the largest economic power in the world, and has control, or very near controlling influence, over almost every international institution of significance to the Iranians. I believe we can gain far more from Iran by dispensing some carrots—and can also apply the sticks more effectively—if we are in face-to-face dialogue. Dangling some carrots now in an unconditional dialogue with Tehran while the surge in Baghdad is only beginning could prove decisive."

<snip>

"demand that the Bush administration commence an unconditional dialogue with the regional powers and each of Iraq’s neighbors immediately. This is the next sense-of-the-Congress resolution that is required."

<snip>

"It’s time for the United States to stop isolating those it disagrees with, pretending that other nations have more influence, asking others to carry the burden of dialogue, and leaving our soldiers in Iraq to struggle without an adequate diplomatic strategy to reinforce their efforts. The evidence of the administration’s lack of diplomatic leadership is evident in the new agreement with North Korea, which could have been reached four years ago before the North Koreans acquired fuel for additional nuclear weapons. We cannot afford more delays with Iran while we pursue a misplaced strategy. Congress and the American people should demand that the administration step forward and lead."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0704.clark.html

"Cannot the world's most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don't we at least want the moral, legal and political "high ground" of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?"

http://securingamerica.com/node/2234

[wyldwolf]

35. it's a brief article.

Policy papers tend to run volumes.

The snippets you pieced together from two different sources is also lacking in completeness and carrots.

[Clarkie1]

38. Do you have a link to the DLC policy paper that runs volumes?

If you would like to read more than the snippets, I have provided links.

[wyldwolf]

40. I didn't say there was such a policy paper, did I?

But cobbling together snippets from sources here and there is certainly not a clear policy position.

Do you have a link to one clear and complete source for this "plan" you're piecing together?

[Clarkie1]

41. You implied it.

"Policy papers tend to run volumes."

Stop trying to obfuscate the discussion, it reminds me to much of some politicians I know.

Here's your link:
www.securingamerica.com

[wyldwolf]

43. no I didn't. I contrasted lengthy policy papers with brief articles

Wes Clark's plan is a more wordy version of the bullet points laid out by the DLC.

[Clarkie1]

45. Hah!

I'm just speechless. "Bullet points," indeed.

Too many bullet points, and the DLC misses some critical negotiating points in their attempt to look as tough as the RNC. Misconduct does not demand more sticks (we have plenty of those already), it demands more carrots.

The very headline of the paper is misguided, implying diplomacy is not a "forceful" response. It falls into the trap of presenting diplomacy as a nice but weak option, just like a Republican talking point.

What Iranian misconduct demands is more forceful diplomacy, and the DLC ought to put more emphasis on the strength of Diplomacy and not being afraid to reach accomodations with our rivals.

[wyldwolf]

48. would you like to compare them?

DLC: Tougher penalties for violating rules against nuclear proliferation. The next step is for the U.N. Security Council to craft stronger economic and political sanctions against the regime.

Clark: For the United States, the conventional thinking would be that we should raise the price that Iran must pay for nuclear weapons: make the sanctions tougher; drive Iran further into diplomatic, financial, and economic isolation;

DLC: Transatlantic efforts to engage Iranian society and stand with Iranian dissidents and reformers. There are already signs of a domestic backlash against Ahmadinijad's outward belligerence and neglect of Iran's mounting economic woes. Iran's youthful population also seems increasingly impatient with the ruling mullahs and expresses strikingly favorable attitudes toward America. We should work with our European allies especially to nurture Iranian aspirations for openness, pluralism, and democracy. This doesn't mean giving opposition groups money -- they don't need it and it would only discredit them. It means offering moral and political support to reformers working for human rights, womens' equality, and greater openness and political pluralism.

Clark: work to destabilize the Iranian regime;

DLC: Effective diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force, which the United States must supply as a substitute for what will otherwise be a perpetually on-the-brink-of-war conflict between Israel and Iran, alongside the possibility of growing rivalry between Tehran and Sunni Arab states.

Clark:... inhibit Iran’s ability to affect the outcome in Iraq; work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and use any progress to diminish Iran’s regional appeal; and convince Iran of a credible U.S. threat.

More...???

[Clarkie1]

50. Clark's not a conventional thinker.

He was expressing "conventional thinking," not the fullness and entirety of his views.

Please read more carefully:

Clark: For the United States, the conventional thinking would be that we should raise the price that Iran must pay for nuclear weapons: make the sanctions tougher; drive Iran further into diplomatic, financial, and economic isolation;

Why don't you post what Clark says after that?



I didn't say what the DLC wrote was all bad:

DLC: Transatlantic efforts to engage Iranian society and stand with Iranian dissidents and reformers. There are already signs of a domestic backlash against Ahmadinijad's outward belligerence and neglect of Iran's mounting economic woes. Iran's youthful population also seems increasingly impatient with the ruling mullahs and expresses strikingly favorable attitudes toward America. We should work with our European allies especially to nurture Iranian aspirations for openness, pluralism, and democracy. This doesn't mean giving opposition groups money -- they don't need it and it would only discredit them. It means offering moral and political support to reformers working for human rights, womens' equality, and greater openness and political pluralism.


It is clear the DLC thinks diplomacy is ineffective from the very title of the paper. That's the conventional thinking, after all.

[wyldwolf]

53. then why is he pushing conventional thinking?

He was expressing "conventional thinking," not the fullness and entirety of his views.

Then what are the fullness and entirety of his views here? If he only views this as "conventional thinking," where is his counter non-conventional solution? I've read carefully, I don't see it.

[Clarkie1]

54. He's not. I'm sorry you don't see what is right in front of your face. nt

[wyldwolf]

57. Then where is his counter-plan? It isn't at the link you provided.

[Clarkie1]

59. His plan is in the Washington monthly article.

Here's one example of non-conventional thinking:

Third, unlike the North Korean economy, the Iranian economy is not in such a desperate condition that Iran will surrender its nuclear pretensions for a few billion dollars’ worth of assistance. This means that other, more positive inducements must become part of the U.S.-Iranian dialogue—such as, perhaps, some reexamination of security alignments for our purposes or activities in the region, a prospect that might be difficult for many Sunni states that have grown quite comfortable with American hostility toward Iran.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2316

[wyldwolf]

61. So why keep giving me two links? And how is that snippet revolutionary?

[Clarkie1]

64. I didn't say it was revolutionary, I said it wasn't conventional thinking.

Has the DLC proposed that in their official output?

Here's another example:

"The focus of this conversation should be on providing a future vision for the region, taking into account national and sectarian insecurities and sensitivities, and acknowledging the de jure legitimacy of the existing regimes."

http://securingamerica.com/node/2316

The DLC position on diplomacy is wrongly focused exclusively on Iraq, with nuclear "misconduct" calling for a "more forceful" response (read, non-diplomatic). How about some more forceful diplomacy of the type Clark advocates? Why isn't the DLC more strongly advocating for diplomacy than "more forceful" responses? What's not forceful about diplomacy? It's all about striking a balance, and the DLC right now seems to me to be out of balance...especially considering the current regime we have here at home. Why are we enabling the administration with this kind of weak DLC rhetoric?

[wyldwolf]

65. but he doesn't offer a counter to it... so how is it a plan?

[Clarkie1]

66. Counter to what? nt

[wyldwolf]

67. the "conventional thinking" you say he doesn't endorse

[Clarkie1]

82. I didn't say Clark doesn't endorse ANY conventional thinking.

If you read this as well as the posts I have made upthread, you can learn what conventional thinking he endorses as well as (more importantly) does not endorse. The conventional thinking is entirely the view of the administration, and we need to counter that.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0704.clark.html

Now if you read this again and say, "I don't see any difference," then you simply are not reading closely enough. There is some agreement with some aspects of the DLC position, but also important differences in emphasis, tone, and policy. I have even supplied you with excerpts upthread that highlight the important differences in emphasis, tone, and policy. I can't help you any more. If you are interested in understanding you will have to make a greater effort yourself.

[wyldwolf]

84. we're referring to specific passage from your link that Clark declares is "conventional thinking."

YOU claim that that isn't part of his plan. Yet, he gives no counter to that "conventional thinking."

[Clarkie1]

89. He certainly does, if you read the rest of the article.

Conventional thinking:

"drive Iran further into diplomatic, financial, and economic isolation"

Clark thinking:

"But the truth is that the Iranians have survived almost thirty years of isolation, hostility, and war. The U.S. intervention in Iraq probably altered permanently the sectarian balance of power in the region in Iran’s favor. And whether our allies in the region appreciate Iran or not, its population of nearly 70 million people, enormous wealth of resources, and strong heritage make it a significant power. A policy of sticks alone is unlikely to persuade Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons....

unlike the North Korean economy, the Iranian economy is not in such a desperate condition that Iran will surrender its nuclear pretensions for a few billion dollars’ worth of assistance. This means that other, more positive inducements must become part of the U.S.-Iranian dialogue—such as, perhaps, some reexamination of security alignments for our purposes or activities in the region, a prospect that might be difficult for many Sunni states that have grown quite comfortable with American hostility toward Iran....

The United States is the largest economic power in the world, and has control, or very near controlling influence, over almost every international institution of significance to the Iranians. I believe we can gain far more from Iran by dispensing some carrots—and can also apply the sticks more effectively—if we are in face-to-face dialogue. Dangling some carrots now in an unconditional dialogue with Tehran while the surge in Baghdad is only beginning could prove decisive...

It’s time for the United States to stop isolating those it disagrees with, pretending that other nations have more influence, asking others to carry the burden of dialogue, and leaving our soldiers in Iraq to struggle without an adequate diplomatic strategy to reinforce their efforts. The evidence of the administration’s lack of diplomatic leadership is evident in the new agreement with North Korea, which could have been reached four years ago before the North Koreans acquired fuel for additional nuclear weapons. We cannot afford more delays with Iran while we pursue a misplaced strategy. Congress and the American people should demand that the administration step forward and lead."

http://securingamerica.com/node/2316

I'd like to see more of this kind of language from the DLC:

"(We) Demand that the Bush administration commence an unconditional dialogue with the regional powers and each of Iraq’s neighbors immediately. This is the next sense-of-the-Congress resolution that is required."

http://securingamerica.com/node/2316

[wyldwolf]

90. no. actually, he is quite vague

dialogue—such as, perhaps, some reexamination of security alignments for our purposes or activities in the region,

Some "reexamination of security alignments?" Like... what?

[Clarkie1]

92. That's not vague.

It means exactly what is says if you would not parse the quote!

"This means that other, more positive inducements must become part of the U.S.-Iranian dialogue—such as, perhaps, some reexamination of security alignments for our purposes or activities in the region, a prospect that might be difficult for many Sunni states that have grown quite comfortable with American hostility toward Iran."

[wyldwolf]

97. well, let's take the quote in full

"This means that other, more positive inducements must become part of the U.S.-Iranian dialogue—such as, perhaps, some reexamination of security alignments for our purposes or activities in the region, a prospect that might be difficult for many Sunni states that have grown quite comfortable with American hostility toward Iran."

What exactly does "reexamination of security alignments for our purposes or activities in the region" mean??

[Clarkie1]

105. It means we would have security agreements with Iran and others in the region. nt

[Clarkie1]

93. Stop isolating Iran! nt

[wyldwolf]

98. Start Isolating Iran! nt

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

112. Wolfie, you remind me so much of this great Monty Python Bit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM


How did you get the Great Cleese to play you???

[Donna Zen]

87. First of all, he doesn't call Iran names

Also, Wes Clark wants to negotiate a set of principles that will permit the entire region to move toward a different paradigm, one that doesn't settle everything with war. Economic interests, and regional interests can trump war because the stake-holders will have something to loose. That is currently not the case, nor is it contemplated by the saber-rattlers at the DLC. Oh sure, they have adopted part of the talk of diplomacy, but they do so with the sword on the table.

The conversation may be a tad stilted, but the United States and Iran did start talking to each other over the weekend in Baghdad at a Middle East conference on the future of Iraq. That's potentially good news.

For all of Iran's meddling in Iraq, American and Iranian interests in that country point in the same general direction. Both want to see the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government prevail over a mostly Sunni insurgency that includes die-hard Baathists and al Qaeda terrorists.(This statement is wrong. The current Iraqi government is firmly in Iran's corner.) And while Tehran undoubtedly would like to create Hezbollah-like client groups among Iraqi's Shia, (again wrong...Sadr wants to form a Hezbollah organization, and Iran doesn't like Sadr.) it also has to be careful not to provoke a military confrontation with the United States or intervention by neighboring Sunni states. (Guess what. The current government in Iraq doesn't give a damn about Sunni lives.)


Iran's intransigence demands a firm response from the international community, not just the United States. Make no mistake: keeping the lid on nuclear proliferation, stopping terrorist attacks on U.N. member states, responding to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic threats to destroy Israel -- these are matters of collective security. (Okay, how long will it take the DLC to understand that Ahmadinejad has NO real power in Iran.)

^^^^^^^^^

I'm glad that this was all in the OP, and thus, I didn't have to return to their site with all of their flashing pictures of the War voters.

[wyldwolf]

91. who calls Iran names?

[sutz12]

23. Talking is OK, but bombing is more fun....and profitable. nt

[Forkboy]

28. Democracy.....We Deliver!

[Clarkie1]

83. Here is what I have a problem with.

"So while direct U.S. talks with Tehran may prove useful in stabilizing Iraq, the broader pattern of Iranian misconduct demands a more forceful response from the international community"

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&conte...

This impliction is that direct talks with Tehran would not be useful in addressing "Iranian misconduct." "Let's not get carried away," (with diplomacy) the paper says. The implication, in fact, is that direct talks with Tehran is not a "forceful" response, which plays right into Republican talking points.

The only mention of diplomacy after that is "diplomacy backed by the credible use of force." The emphasis remains on using sticks, not carrots. That's not an effective counter to the administration's policy, which is all sticks.

I'm not saying everything in the DLC paper is misguided or all bad, but overall it's weak, in my view.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=254217

[ProudDad]

113. Careful, our DLC friends

are sooooooooooooooooooo sensitive... :hi: