thinkprogress.org— With video: This morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) strongly advocated preparing for a strike against Iran, going further than any member of Congress yet.
Jun 10, 2007View in Crawl 4
"People are fooling themselves if they think Iran will give up their nuclear ambitions through dialog.""What's your reasoning behind this assertion? Or is it just a statement intended to goad people into buying into the rest of your argument?" You can't be that naive can you? If you can't agree with such an obvious thing, there isn't much hope for you. "Also, the U.S. has many options when it comes to using force. They do not have to have some full scale war. Bombing the heck out of nuclear sites (most are not in heavy civilian areas) with special forces flying in and out of a few spots would put Iran back 10 years."Bombing civilian facilities (killing hundreds of innocent people in the process) is not only an act of war, but an act of terrorism, and would certainly elicit an Iranian response. What would the US reaction be if Iran blew up a nuclear reactor in New York?Why did the U.S. attack Germany in WWII when Japan was the one attacking us? I guess we were no better than the Japs or Nazi's eh. Moral relativism is a very weak argument and just plain wrong. "That means the world has to either accept a nuclear Iran- scary....very scary considering they are the world's biggest state sponsor of terror with an apocalyptic madman leading them.""Biggest state sponsor of terror? Apocalyptic madman? These are strong assertions, but this sword can cut both ways. The US supports groups that are involved with terrorism, but they don't bother to list themselves as state sponsors of terror. Bush classifies nations of people as 'Evil', not necessarily apocalyptic but certainly in the madman realm."You can say all you want to about Bush. You can say anything you want about Mickey Mouse. Doesn't change the fact about Iran sponsoring terrorism and being led by a madman. "Or it can act with force. Always a last resort but sometimes needed. Is there anything wrong with "preparing" for one of only 2 options?""Always as a last resort? Just like how force was used as a last resort against Saddam? I mean, Iraq disarmed and had the IAEA verify, but the US still invaded. So, what choices does Iran have? Comply and be invaded or, not comply and be invaded? The only thing that might stop a US invasion, at this point, IS a nuclear weapon. When your policy is "invade non-nuclear capable states whether they comply or not" it doesn't take a leap of logic to figure out why nations want nuclear weapons."Again off subject. The IAEA did not verify that Iraq was disarmed. You need to go back and learn your history instead of trying to rewrite it.
Clinton told some 1,700 AIPAC supporters that the US must take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.""To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," she added. Clinton excoriated the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric.""We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she added.Lieberman is not the only figure on the left talking tough about Iran.
"El Baradei said his job is to stop a war between the U.S. and Iran. That is not his job. His job is to stop weapons proliferation. With such a bias, how can anybody believe what is coming out of the IAEA?"Yeah, preventing war does seem to introduce bias into his duties, but if it's bias we're concerned about then doesn't the US have considerable bias against Iran (e.g., the whole 'Evil' statement)? Doesn't the US have a history of operating on bad intelligence, some of which is know to be fake (e.g., aluminum tubes, yellow cake)? So, if I had to choose who to believe, I'd believe the guy that has a good track record over the guy that doesn't."Anyways, Iran is not allowing total and free access any longer."Iran is allowing inspections to the letter of the NPT, perhaps even more. The whole row over Iran refusing to let inspectors in was valid under the NPT. The IAEA has to submit a big list of inspectors to Iran for their approval, and Iran can select those it will or won't allow. They've historically allowed pretty much anyone, but with the ratcheting up of threats from the West, they've selected inspectors that are less likely to be spying. I could be wrong, so I expect you to provide me a link to a site showing that Iran is violating the NPT to back up your point."They have admitted to enriching high grade weapons uranium or plutonium- whichever. There isn't any use for that except for weapons. Don't you get it?"I've never heard of Iran admitting to any such thing. There was some question as to the origins of some HEU that was found in a centrifuge, but it was verified to have been imported with the equipment from Pakistan. I think that Iran's using some small quantities of plutonium for medical research, but it's all being monitored by the IAEA. I could be wrong, so I expect you to provide me a link to a site showing that Iran is violating the NPT to back up your point."Yes they did have a pact targeting the US. So if a country has a pact to strike another countries, it is OK to go to war with them? What do you think Iran has been doing with their pacts with terrorists? What do you think they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, picking flowers? Iran has been targeting us in a low grade hush hush conflict for years."The US has been targeting Iran for decades and only in the past year or two have we seen _any_ indication that Iran is taking any actions against the US. The actions that are being taken aren't even specifically against the US, they're aimed and ensuring the stability of non-hostile governments (towards Iran) in Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, the US just admitted to arming the same Sunni groups that Iran is 'supposedly' arming, so now the US has pacts with terrorists too. Not to mention the fact that the US armed and trained a group know to perform terror operations inside Iran.So, I'll ask again, why is it acceptable for the US to arm and train terrorist groups that are hostile towards Iran and not acceptable for Iran to do the same with groups hostile towards the US?
aceg1357Jun 11, 2007
"People are fooling themselves if they think Iran will give up their nuclear ambitions through dialog.""What's your reasoning behind this assertion? Or is it just a statement intended to goad people into buying into the rest of your argument?" You can't be that naive can you? If you can't agree with such an obvious thing, there isn't much hope for you. "Also, the U.S. has many options when it comes to using force. They do not have to have some full scale war. Bombing the heck out of nuclear sites (most are not in heavy civilian areas) with special forces flying in and out of a few spots would put Iran back 10 years."Bombing civilian facilities (killing hundreds of innocent people in the process) is not only an act of war, but an act of terrorism, and would certainly elicit an Iranian response. What would the US reaction be if Iran blew up a nuclear reactor in New York?Why did the U.S. attack Germany in WWII when Japan was the one attacking us? I guess we were no better than the Japs or Nazi's eh. Moral relativism is a very weak argument and just plain wrong. "That means the world has to either accept a nuclear Iran- scary....very scary considering they are the world's biggest state sponsor of terror with an apocalyptic madman leading them.""Biggest state sponsor of terror? Apocalyptic madman? These are strong assertions, but this sword can cut both ways. The US supports groups that are involved with terrorism, but they don't bother to list themselves as state sponsors of terror. Bush classifies nations of people as 'Evil', not necessarily apocalyptic but certainly in the madman realm."You can say all you want to about Bush. You can say anything you want about Mickey Mouse. Doesn't change the fact about Iran sponsoring terrorism and being led by a madman. "Or it can act with force. Always a last resort but sometimes needed. Is there anything wrong with "preparing" for one of only 2 options?""Always as a last resort? Just like how force was used as a last resort against Saddam? I mean, Iraq disarmed and had the IAEA verify, but the US still invaded. So, what choices does Iran have? Comply and be invaded or, not comply and be invaded? The only thing that might stop a US invasion, at this point, IS a nuclear weapon. When your policy is "invade non-nuclear capable states whether they comply or not" it doesn't take a leap of logic to figure out why nations want nuclear weapons."Again off subject. The IAEA did not verify that Iraq was disarmed. You need to go back and learn your history instead of trying to rewrite it.
meanyogurtJun 11, 2007
Clinton told some 1,700 AIPAC supporters that the US must take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.""To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," she added. Clinton excoriated the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric.""We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she added.Lieberman is not the only figure on the left talking tough about Iran.
meanyogurtJun 11, 2007
Mr Sadr also insisted he opposed Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs, referring to tentative talks between the US and Iran. "We reject such interference," he said. "Iraq is a matter for the Iraqis."If he didn't want Iranian influence why does he accept their support?<a class="user" href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501">http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501</a>
leadoffmanJun 12, 2007
"Can I get a "Ron Paul in '08"?? "No
kooftJun 12, 2007
"El Baradei said his job is to stop a war between the U.S. and Iran. That is not his job. His job is to stop weapons proliferation. With such a bias, how can anybody believe what is coming out of the IAEA?"Yeah, preventing war does seem to introduce bias into his duties, but if it's bias we're concerned about then doesn't the US have considerable bias against Iran (e.g., the whole 'Evil' statement)? Doesn't the US have a history of operating on bad intelligence, some of which is know to be fake (e.g., aluminum tubes, yellow cake)? So, if I had to choose who to believe, I'd believe the guy that has a good track record over the guy that doesn't."Anyways, Iran is not allowing total and free access any longer."Iran is allowing inspections to the letter of the NPT, perhaps even more. The whole row over Iran refusing to let inspectors in was valid under the NPT. The IAEA has to submit a big list of inspectors to Iran for their approval, and Iran can select those it will or won't allow. They've historically allowed pretty much anyone, but with the ratcheting up of threats from the West, they've selected inspectors that are less likely to be spying. I could be wrong, so I expect you to provide me a link to a site showing that Iran is violating the NPT to back up your point."They have admitted to enriching high grade weapons uranium or plutonium- whichever. There isn't any use for that except for weapons. Don't you get it?"I've never heard of Iran admitting to any such thing. There was some question as to the origins of some HEU that was found in a centrifuge, but it was verified to have been imported with the equipment from Pakistan. I think that Iran's using some small quantities of plutonium for medical research, but it's all being monitored by the IAEA. I could be wrong, so I expect you to provide me a link to a site showing that Iran is violating the NPT to back up your point."Yes they did have a pact targeting the US. So if a country has a pact to strike another countries, it is OK to go to war with them? What do you think Iran has been doing with their pacts with terrorists? What do you think they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, picking flowers? Iran has been targeting us in a low grade hush hush conflict for years."The US has been targeting Iran for decades and only in the past year or two have we seen _any_ indication that Iran is taking any actions against the US. The actions that are being taken aren't even specifically against the US, they're aimed and ensuring the stability of non-hostile governments (towards Iran) in Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, the US just admitted to arming the same Sunni groups that Iran is 'supposedly' arming, so now the US has pacts with terrorists too. Not to mention the fact that the US armed and trained a group know to perform terror operations inside Iran.So, I'll ask again, why is it acceptable for the US to arm and train terrorist groups that are hostile towards Iran and not acceptable for Iran to do the same with groups hostile towards the US?