Please explain to me why Edwards believes that Iran is a nuclear threat.

[Leopolds Ghost]

And why he thinks the conventional military option should be an option,
when it quite clearly isn't for other major regional powers we would
destroy our economy going up against. A fact which Iran knows all too well.

So, Edwards fans...??

I can understand why you might feel Edwards is a populist.

It would help if he invested his money in re-opening some of them mills
in NC. He could even buy the sock factory that closed down in my mother's
home town. But I don't want to attack Edwards for that, he's better than
a lot of the alternatives in 2008.

I do question the judgement of anyone who buys Bush's lies about Iran --
a country his father built and secretly armed, to provide an enemy
Reagan could run and win against.

[roguevalley]

1. I had not heard about this. I would like to know too. This is worrisome.

I lay awake nights wondering if tomorrow will come some days because of bush and his shit. I don't want it to spill over to people like John. Please elucidate.

[dave_p]

16. Worrisome indeed

I've not dumped on any candidate, but this bothers me about JE. From his March 2006 address to AIPAC:

I believe that for far too long we’ve abdicated our responsibility to deal with the Iranian threat to the Europeans. That is not the way to deal with an unacceptable threat to America, and an unacceptable threat to Israel. Iran’s recent actions beginning with the reprocessing of uranium, refusing to cooperate with international inspections, makes clear that it intends to build nuclear weapons....

The truth is that for too long we’ve muddled through on this threat. Now we need to make a clear stand that Iran cannot and will not have nuclear weapons. Keeping nuclear weapons – keeping nuclear weapons out of Tehran’s hands is a strategic imperative for the security of the United States, for Israel and for the world, and we need to do what we can to help encourage democratic change in Iran. Iran is the greatest external threat facing Israel...

Two points. First, the IAEA - the body that inspects Iran's nuclear program - has said explicitly that it's not at all clear that Iran intends to build such weapons, and it's identified no diversion of resources or materials to that end. The Agency does indeed have inspection issues, but that's a different matter.

Second, the greatest external threat facing whom? Since when was US policy determined by so far remote Israeli security fears? And what might be the greatest external threat facing Iran? That's right, Israeli nukes. Is nobody entitled to similar (and rather more immediate) security worries about them?

Yes, Israel has security concerns. So do her neighbors. And there's going to be no way forward without addressing that whole mess on a just and honest basis. Just backing Israel doesn't get us anywhere. And parroting falsehoods about the status of Iran's nuclear program is plain dangerous at this time. There's other alarming stuff in there too about Israel joining Nato, which is downright nuts.

Maybe JE's changed his stance since March. I'd certainly like to know.

[Erika]

2. I've asked Skinner to stop all these hate Edwards threads

You might like eating your own. I don't.

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. I don't hate Edwards. If we can persuade DU that Iran is a conventional threat, NOT a nuclear

then we can persuade Edwards of same.

Ironically, some folks here (and Anthony Cordesman)
think the opposite -- that Iran is a nuclear threat, NOT a
conventional military threat, and thus war with Iran
would be slightly less immoral than war with Iraq, or
that it "was always the real enemy" or some such pap.

[rodeodance]

5. rather like the Hil Clinton threads lately

[Puglover]

18. I'm very pro Edwards but I don't see this

as an Edwards hating thread. Unless the OP is subtly trying to undermine. If he believes this crap I'm very interested in knowing about it.

[Clark2008]

21. And, hopefully, he won't because this isn't a hate thread.

This is asking an extremely legitimate question regarding a Democratic candidate's position on a very important matter.

How, exactly, is that a "hate thread?"

Sounds more like Free Speech and asking legitimate questions, if you ask me.

If the OP has asked why Edwards had his mole removed or spun a rumor about Edwards and some intern based on dubious sources, I could see your point. But this is backed up by using Edwards own words.

Please... you sound like a Bush fan when you ask for threads like this to be shut down. Why do you hate America?

[Toots]

26. Isn't this a political discussion board?

It would seem imperative to discuss the candidates and that includes all their pluses and their negatives. I take it you don't want to hear it but did you also ask Skinner to stop the hate Hillary threads? Let's get it out there. If there is something that a candidate says or does that people don't like let's hear it and then we can make up our own mind. It is called critical thinking and America needs to do more of it. Don't you wish a few more people had been made aware of some of Bush*'s faults before the election?

[Cha]

41. Yes. Some just

have to wave the victim card.

I'd like to know more about Edwards supporting a strike on Iran, too.

If the bushits are for it then there's some goddamn ulterior motive and I am not going to be supporting a Dem who buys into that shite, AGAIN.

[Puglover]

28. Actually on reading more of the bullshit

hate Edwards threads I'm starting to agree with you Erika. This is over the friggin top.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Discussing Mansions is over the top. Discussing Iran isn't

I am disappointed by all of the countless threads about the home the Edwards are building. I can understand why people here wanted one or two threads to kick it around on, but not 40.

This thread isn't like that though. It is part of a critical policy debate that we as both Democrats and Americans need to be having right NOW, while there is still time to discuss what is an appropriate stance toward whatever threat that Iran poses or does not pose to us or our allies, before we are all simply reacting to some potentially dangerous action taken by our Government against Iran after the fact. There wasn't enough debate like this prior to the run up to war with Iraq, and we all know what that left us with.

How do you think the United States should handle relations with Iran is a question whe should ask of any Democrat who wants our nomination to run for President, not just John Edwards. John Edwards just so happens to have made some strong statements regarding that very subject and it is appropriate that they be looked at and discussed. But we should be demanding that the other candidates also be forthcoming about their views on this critically important subject, and we should discuss all of it.

Not to do so makes a travesty of the purpose of this site. Primary season has begun precisely because the Democratic Party now has announced candidates who seeking the support of each and every one of us who is registered as a Democratic. Democrats are officially running against each other now. Democracy requires that we compare and debate the differences in their views and priorities concerning major issues of importance to America.

John Edward's house does not meet that test, but his views toward Iran does.

[truth2power]

46. This is interesting..

What, about the OP is hating Edwards? I've been extremely concerned about Edwards' stance on Iran. It's changed my mind about whether I want to vote for him. This is in no way "eating our own". It's called critical thinking.

Someone raises an issue in a civil way, and we're not supposed to talk about it? I thought that's what we accuse the Repugs of doing?

[yurbud]

4. because he wants to be president. How far would he get with business if he said Iran is no threat

to us under any circumstance even if they had nukes since an attack on us would be suicidal. We have the capability to respond literally a thousand times over, and if some other country struck us first, the rest of the world would accept our retaliation (grudgingly at worst).

No country is an offensive threat to us. Russia could nuke us pretty bad, but then everyone in Russia would be dead in retaliation. Every other country that attack us conventionally or through terrorism would get back far worse than they give to us. But that doesn't keep the gigantic defense contractors going does it?

[hippiechick]

7. bingo!

:applause:

[Syrinx]

6. Why are we having "Shit On Edwards Day?"

Did Hillary coordinate this?

:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

8. Playa Hatas who are afraid of war with Iran, which is suddenly "on the table".

Is war with Pakistan on the table because of their nuclear proliferation?

Should war with Israel herself remain on the table because she has nukes?
Of course not. This is just warmongering nonsense which should be enough
to disqualify anyone from the presidency.

Imagine if Kerry started talking that way. That right there shows you the difference between Edwards and Kerry, whom many DUers righteously feel "disqualified" himself for much more shallow reasons than supporting war with Iran.

(Oh, I forgot, many of the people complaining would be "hatin' on Kerry"
and hardly anyone would defend him because "he abandoned us in 2004.")

[Syrinx]

10. huh?

I think you got the wrong person. I ain't been hatin' Kerry.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. I wasn't attacking you. Just pointing out if Kerry had started saber-rattling against Iran

Imagine what many people (including many people who are especially fond of John Edwards and would have preferred he be at the top of the 2004 ticket) would have said.

Or are all those people hawks when it comes to Iran and never thought he or Kerry should have had to apologize for the IWR?

Point is, I remember the outrage when Kerry said he would vote for the IWR again, but for reasons that were subtle...

Nothing subtle about Edwards' recent remarks. He believes that Iran must be invaded if they get nukes.

Isn't that a disqualificatory statement? Why not invade Pakistan while we're at it. After all, they're harboring Osama Bin Forgotten, AND illegally obtained nukes pointed at a US ally (India).

[Clark2008]

22. Actually, to be more succinct, Edwards believes we should

PREEMPTIVELY invade Iran to keep them from GETTING nukes.

Sounds sort of like BushCo.'s preemptive strikes, to me.

[Neshanic]

31. When I heard that on the radio, I almost ran into a palm tree.

Unbelievable.

[yurbud]

9. the correct response to any politician who says this is to laugh, and say, "No seriously..."

[OKNancy]

12. Because most sane politicians agree that Iran is a threat

It's how that "threat" is handled, that is the question for the US and others.

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

Mr. President, as a known sponsor of international terrorism, and in light of the president of Iran’s recent apocalyptic statements calling for the destruction of Israel, Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The international community must respond quickly and decisively to Iran’s gross disregard of international treaties and obligations and to its concerted and malicious efforts to develop the capability to create nuclear weapons.

The international community must take concerted and decisive action to prevent Iran from furthering its nuclear research and technology development. In its forthcoming meeting on February 2, 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors should heed the calls by Russia, China, the European Union, and the United States to reaffirm its findings that Iran has blatantly violated its international obligations, recognize the grave nature of Iran’s recent actions, and refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council should then speak with one voice to condemn Iran’s actions and send a clear signal that continued defiance of the international community will not be tolerated.

It is essential that the Security Council approve specific actions to prevent the furthering of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The Security Council specifically, and the international community generally, must recognize the potentially devastating link between the violent and defiant rhetoric of Iran’s president and his regime’s determined effort to undermine approved and transparent methods of developing civilian nuclear technology for energy use.

Congress can also take steps to help stop or slow Iran’s acquisition of nuclear and other WMD-related technology,.............

more at:
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/01/2006131CR.html

[leftofthedial]

39. kind of like how almost all "Sane" politicians agreed

we needed to give king george the IWR.

Yeah. That's got me convinced.

[entanglement]

50. Another point: There is no doubt the Israelis would like us to attack Iran

I mean, from their perspective, it's just perfect. Americans pay the costs in blood and dollars and earn international infamy, and they secure the removal of their enemies for free. Utterly immoral, but sound foreign policy for them. For us, it is a dangerous trap. It's high time to stop playing global cop and end imperialist wars of aggression. If Israel were a real "friend", they would advise us to stop, not egg us on through their numerous mouthpieces / "think-tanks".

BTW, Israel is also armed to the teeth and quite capable of defending itself against any action by Iran, in fact an attack on them would be suicidal for Iran.

[OllieLotte]

13. Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. A number of people link the two.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. Petraeus said "the flow of oil out of Iran needs to be protected"

Iran is attempting to convert its dollars to euros. A number of people link the two.

[Clark2008]

23. He didn't say that, exactly, though.

He said Zionism needs to be wiped off the Middle Eastern map. His beef is that Europe is the continent that allowed the Holocaust (if it did occur - his words, not mine. I know it occurred); therefore, why didn't Europe supply the land for a Jewish homeland instead of placing it in the Middle East.

Is Ahmadinejad a nut? Probably. However, he's no more of a nut than our own leader and still has to be listened to. He's not the only leader in Iran and we can go around him and use the power of the region to stop nuclear threats instead of merely invading with an army we don't have.

[rman]

15. Does Edwards believe Iran actually *is* a nuclear threat?

"is" as in, right now?

If so, i can no longer take him seriously - even Bush talks about "will have the capability to create nuclear weapons" at some unspecified time in the future. That's "maybe some day" not "is".

[Clark2008]

24. My biggest complaint about Edwards is evidenced by this

series of talking points from him and that is that he says and does what is political prudent for him to get elected to whatever position he is seeking by playing to the crown in question.

He was speaking to an extremely pro-Israel crowd at this gathering; therefore, he continues to use rightwing talking points to make Arab and Persian states into boogeymen to make points with the folks at the gathering.

If he speaks to a pro-Arab crowd later, expect the rhetoric to change.

This is why I don't like the man: he's not consistant in his thinking and he panders.

I'm not so much concerned with his substance as I am with his CHANGING of substance to suit HIS needs.

[oblivious]

17. Some serious warmongering propaganda on this thread.

[Cruzan]

19. This is all plainly self-evident

Iran is a nuclear threat. There's vast amounts of evidence of their intentions. Feel free to Google.

Iran is a destablizing influence in the Middle East. They fund Hezballah and other terrorist groups along with what they're doing themselves in Iraq.

Given that, the military option should always remain; it should never be taken off the table. But at the same time any kind of military solution should be an absolute last resort, and only when there's a clear, undeniable, impending threat to the U.S. itself. Trying to deal with Iran from the start by making thinly valed military threats is simply insanity. There's a long road that must be traveled down to even come close to that point. Compare our dealings with Iran to those with North Korea. Though there have certainly been fumbles and no one could call the current situation a success, the fact that we're not practically on the brink of war with the DPRK is something not to be taken lightly. The only thing I can think of why the approaches are so vastly different is that Iran falls with the neocon sphere and North Korea does not.

[razors edge]

20. How much oil does DPRK have?

[Clark2008]

25. Um... Iran is NOT a nuclear threat... NOW.

Maybe in 10 years, but not NOW.

This is why diplomacy is so important. Using the sage advice of Barney Fife, diplomacy could NIP IT IN THE BUD.

Besides, with our military stretched so thin, I hardly consider that threat much of a threat to them. The bigger threat would come from regional discourse and that's the angle the United States needs to work.

[MadHound]

27. And exactly what evidence do you have that Iran is a nuclear threat?

Let's see here, Iran has a few grams, at most, of uranium enriched to reactor grade standards, ie about 5%. Weapons grade material comes in at 85+%. Long, long way between here and there, especially give the number centrifuges that Iran has. Right now, they have aprox. 300 centrifuges for their enrichment process. Next year they are wanting to get aprox 3000 more centrifuges for their enrichment process. Now I know that sounds like a lot, but consider that with gas diffusion enrichment, it would take aprox 50,000 centrifuges aprox. 10 years to enrich enough uranium to weapons grade level.

This is not a threat.

Also take this into consideration. Many, if not most Iranians don't want to continue living under a fundementalist regime. There is actually a very strong democratic movement going in Iran. And most likely they would be electing much more moderate governments except for the fact that the US is rattling that war saber real loud. This tends to bring people together under a very nationalistic leader, much like what happened in Iran. If we back off and stop beating the war drums, we'll get a government that we can deal with.

[Cruzan]

30. Another view says they're two years away

Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

[MadHound]

33. Another "view" can say anything, including that monkeys will start shooting out my butt

But if you wish to deal strictly in facts, the fact is, using cold hard physics and the reports of people who are in a position to know them, that Iran will not have any nuclear weapons developed within five years, and more likely ten or more. Here is the report of the chief IAEA inspector, stating flat out that there is no nuclear weapons program currently underway in Iran, and that it would take five, ten years or more develop one<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3HDzGEKJD1k&refer=home> Looking at the physical reality of the situation, it is impossible to produce enough weapons grade material to have a bomb short of two decades. Iran has only 300 centrifuges, and wants to have 3000 by the end of this year. It would take at least ten years to produce enough weapons grade material for a bomb using 50,000 centrifuges. Gas centrifuge, as a method of enriching uranium, takes a long time to bring material up to weapons grade. In addition, there are many give-aways when a country is doing this. The biggest two is the amount of centrifuges they purchase along with the amount of gaseous uranium hexafluoride. The amount of these two ingredients that Iran wants to have or already has is the same amount that is in line with what they would be using for plant development, not bomb development.

These are the facts on the ground. The piece that you link to is nothing but pure specualtion, from a RW rag, that backs its position up with no facts of any sort, just the hot air that they're spewing. This makes it an OPINION piece, not a factual one. And you know what they say about opinions:eyes:

If we're going to deal with this situation rationally, then we must base our viewpoints and actions off of the facts of the matter, not opinions. Dealing with opinions is what got us into the mess in Iraq. Let's not repeat that mistake with Iran OK. Rather, let us look at the facts of the matter, and if you do so, you will see that they are all pointing to the conclusion that Iran is not, nor will not have a nuclear weapons program for a relatively long while. Certainly longer than two years, and probably longer than ten.

Please, don't take your cue from a RW rag whose purpose is to promote war and the ongoing militarization of our world.

[Cruzan]

34. The Bloomberg article says nothing of whether Iran has a

nuclear weapons program nor does it address Iran potentially acquiring enriched uranium from another country, e.g. Russia, Pakistan or North Korea.

[MadHound]

35. Let's see here

``We have not seen any facilities capable of building a weapon,'' International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland."

First line in the article friend, sounds like they're saying Iran doesn't have a weapons program to me:shrug: As far as acquiring weapons grade material from another country, well, it's not as simple as going down to your local 7-11 and picking up a few pounds. Too many safeguards and too much observation makes the acquistion of black market material highly unlikely. And if you would go through and read the various IAEA reports, you will find no such mention of Iran acquiring any sort of weapons grade material from other countries.

So please, if you are going to continue this arguement, please do so with facts, not "views" or "opinions" or "what if" that highly unlikely to happen. We live in a reality based world, please join it.

You are trying to put me in the position to argue a negative, how do you prove somebody doesn't have something? I've provided you with facts that say just that. Rather than continue to deal in specualtion, opinions and RW militarized views, provide me with some FACTS that show me that Iran has or is developing a nuclear weapons programs. Until you come with facts, your opinion means very little.

[Cruzan]

36. "We have not seen any facilities capable of building a weapon''

does not equate to not having a nuclear weapons program. It simply means, at best, Iran is not capable of building one today. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, but the Bloomberg article, which you seemed to almost label as a primary source 'report,' doesn't even quote any recognized authority stating it's unlikely Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Regarding acquiring enriched uranium, again no negative need be proven, but simply saying IAEA reports don't mention it, is hardly a dismissal.

[MadHound]

37. Gee, if one doesn't have the facilities, one can't build a weapon now can you?

And frankly, building a nuclear weapons facility is a highly specialized, very noticable endeavor, something that would be common knowledge to the whole world withink weeks of starting such a program. Especially since we have satellites permanently placed over Iran for this very purpose. In addition, this is a project that takes years, up to a decade to complete. You can't simply throw up a steel shed and start enriching. And for most of the specialized equipment Iran would need, they would have to import. They don't have the capability to build their own hot cells, vacumn chambers and other specialed facilities that they would need. How in the hell do you think we know what they are doing now? Oh, yeah, we have access to the invoices for what they're ordering:eyes:

And while you are chastising me for my sources(why I don't know, I would think that Bloomberg and the head of the IAEA would be considered highly acceptable sources), you continue to fail in providing any sort of facts to back your assessment up with. All that you have is an opinion piece taken from a RW pro-militarization site. And yet you're chastising me about sources. Puhleeze, back your assertions up with some sources, factual sources, and then we might get somewhere.

And apparently you are failing to either fully read or fully comprehend the material I'm linking to. What part of "We are not dealing with a threat tomorrow.'' do you not understand?

Look, if you wish to continue to frighten yourself needlessly with the spector of a nuclear Iran, fine. But I would suggest that you stop trying to frighten others when you don't have any facts to back your ass up with. This is the same sort of tactics that Bushboy uses, and frankly it's dangerous and makes you look foolish.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Erecting bogymen to "save" us from is a favorite pastime of politicians.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[MrPrax]

32. A new low...?

So as I understand some of the objections:

You have a President candidate that attends the annual Herzliya Conference in Israel, mostly put on by people who are his 'ideological counterparts' back home in the US, where one of the key note speakers basically let's the cat out of the bag regarding the Israel campaign against Iran:

Rallying the international community to isolate Iran should be the “main mission” of Israel, said Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu. The former prime minister said Israel must trigger a “wave for delegitmizing” the regime by putting the Iranian president on trial for incitement to genocide, and through voluntary economic sanctions like divesture. Jewish Week -- "Iran Threat Steals Show At Herzliya"

So anyway -- this conference attended by such stalwart democrats like Perle, Burns, mostly all Bushite neo-cons and joined by Presidential democratic candidates Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Mitt Romney and JOHN EDWARDS is an off-limits discussion at DU?

...So it's just a smear job to point out that John Edwards agrees with the farthest fringes of the American and Zionist Right and accepts a course of action that some have predicted might start world war three and end up ultimately destroying the the country he wants to lead?

And people don't want this mentioned?

[sufrommich]

47. The majority of American people,

Dem or Rep,would be in favor of isolating Iran until it gives up it's quest for nuclear weapons.The majority of American people would also support a presidential candidate who supports Israel's right to exist.A majority of American people would also view Iran's threat to wipe Israel off the map while at the same time holding a Holocaust denial conference as a call for wholesale destruction of Israel.It's hardly fringe.The fact that the neocoms have glommed onto the threat as a way and means to carry out their plans for the middle east is not proof that no threat exists.Show me the Democratic candidate that does not support Israel and is not concerned with Iran's growing militaristic posturing.

[MrPrax]

49. Sorry...

no dice...simply catapulting the propaganda for free actually makes you worst looking than John Edwards who is at least lipsyncing this shit for money...

The fact that the neocoms have glommed onto the threat as a way and means to carry out their plans for the middle east is not proof that no threat exists.

Actually the fact neocom are saying just that is MORE than enough proof there is no threat...some people just don't learn.

[Adelante]

52. Small correction

Edwards wasn't there; he spoke by satellite.

Yes to the rest.

[Pastiche423]

38. K & R

I simply do not understand why anyone would back a warmongering Dem for pres after spending the last six years under a warmongering repuke.

[Flabbergasted]

40. If the TRUTH about the dem candidates insults people it doesn't mean we should

just ignore the TRUTH so we can live in a little happy bubble world.

rant off.

[RegimeChange2008]

42. There are many things I like about John Edwards as a potential candidate

But if he in any way supports the expansion of this insane, genocidal, fascist imperialism into Iran, then there is no way I could vote for him.

And that goes for any other candidate who supports it.

[newyawker99]

44. Hi RegimeChange2008!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Marie26]

43. IMHO, he was fund-raising. nt

[ohio2007]

45. While others went overseas for a first hand look

I wonder what sound bytes from them we hear in the next few weeks.
The upcoming acts of congress discussions and debates should be very very revealing as to the two year tac ending in '08

[sweetheart]

51. i don't want to hear from him

I remember him in the debate with cheney, fffffffffffffff i won't say it, so many of you like him.

He's already been part of a losing op, he should lieberman.

Edwards has already proven his military awareness by his fool vote on iraq,
need i hear from his 'wise' counsel again? why? A populist is only wrong when
he's in the minority... to some people.

[Adelante]

53. For those interested...

Wes Clark said this only last night in Nevada.

Clark said in an interview that he opposes the Bush administration’s proposed escalation of troops in Iraq, and also is concerned about a possible military foray into Iran.

“It’s amazing to me that the president doesn’t think he has enough leverage yet to deal with the Iranians,” Clark said, adding that he fears “a buildup to a strike on Iran — and I don’t believe we should ever go to war with a country unless it’s the absolutely, absolutely, absolutely last resort.”

“When you want to initiate combat operations, when you won’t deign to speak to the country, what in the world is the matter with this leadership?”

Nothing he hasn't been saying for years now, so he said it again last night.

[Kurovski]

54. Kick.(nt)