For all of you that agree with HRC that Iran is a threat which justified her vote on Kyl/lieberman..

[Windy]

Explain to me why Iran poses a much greater threat than Pakistan and justifies potential military intervention? Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. With AlQ working and rebuilding unrestrained in the border areas and launching devastating terrorist attacks with regularity within the country, I believe that Pakistan is much more of a concern than Iran. With AQ Khan only under "house arrest", the instability of the government and prevalence and support for Al Q in the country, the possibility of a nuclear weapon being placed in the hands of terrorists is far greater with Pakistan in possession of nukes than Iran. Further, Iran wouldn't launch a government sanctioned strike in Israel as they KNOW that Israel has nuclear weapons and will use them. Further, no one really knows what Israel has since they refuse to sign on to the Nuclear Anti-proliferation treaty!

[Stinky The Clown]

1. That's Biden's riff .......

.... and I agree with it.

[Windy]

2. Actually its my riff since I haven't heard Joe talk in detail about it

but hey, its nice to know that Joe is following my lead!
:o)  

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Hahaha

Joe .... izzat you????

Actually he talked about this during the debate last night. That's why I know its his riff.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Obama too, he wanted to bomb Pakistan, back when he backed a bill just like K/L.

But Barack is counting on the short attention span of his backers.

[robinlynne]

3. agreed. strongly. we have been sending millions to Pakistan since 9-11,

lots of which gets funneled right over to binLAden's people. Oh, I'm going to stop, before I get angry.

[yurbud]

4. We have 10000 nukes. No country is a threat to us except Russia or China and

they know it would be suicidal to try to take us over.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Well for what its worth, that line of reason is VERY dangerous given the power

of just one small nuke.

After the first few, a country would just be nuking already nuked ash.

You only need a few small ones to create Armegeddon.

Which is why they should ALL be destroyed.

[yurbud]

14. are you old enough to remembe MAD? Iran knows that if one went off here, but the dust cleared, they

would be burned off the map and we would still have nearly 10,000 left.

No country in history has committed suicide by undertaking a military action with zero chance of success.

[BootinUp]

18. This is my main point of contention with Biden's

debate point. Not that he would overlook the threat, but his reasoning is wide open to attack in a GE.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. If people think its a threat, why aren't they enlisting?

[Disturbed]

8. Sen Clinton said that Iran is trying to develope Nuke Weapons.

There is absolutely no proof of that. Why does she keep saying that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Because she thinks voters are stupid.

[OKNancy]

6. WHO said this?

No fair googling

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, including adding teeth to export control legislation such as the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act. The Iran Nonproliferation Enhancement Act (S.1976) that Senator Kyl and I introduced late last year would do just that. It would toughen the ISNA by requiring rather than merely authorizing sanctions on proliferators, extending sanctions to the parent companies, and increasing the types of sanctions that apply to proliferators. By adopting this legislation, we would be sending a crystal clear message to would-be proliferators: if you choose to assist Iran in developing nuclear or other WMD-related capabilities, you are also choosing to forgo doing business with the United States.

History teaches us that we cannot ignore the stated intent of those who seek to destroy nations. A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to the region, to Israel, and to the entire international community. A concerted international effort is needed to prevent Iran from procuring the technology and materiel needed to develop a nuclear weapon. This effort must begin now, and it must be comprehensive.

[BootinUp]

19. I'm guessing Biden.

2nd edit, I'll stay with my first guess.

[OKNancy]

20. Russ Feingold

The thing is, just because he said it doesn't mean war...just like what Wes Clark said, they are a threat and need to be dealt with, but that doesn't mean bombing or invasion.

I know you and I are on the same wavelength on this.. lol

[Windy]

27. RUSS FEINGOLD - NAY ON KYL LIEBERMAN!!

and no its not a change of heart. It is the fact that there is no reason to suggest that military action is necessary to deal wtih Iran. His statment does not indicate that. He does not claim that the military in Iran is a terrorist organization.

No, you can't ignore Iran just as you can't ignore pakistan or syria or saudi arabia for that matter, but giving Bush an excuse or green light to take further military action is a mistake in judgment.

[AX10]

7. I agree that Pakistan is true threat to us.

It is beyond logic why the US still gives them one cent so that they can arm themselves against the west.

[Bitwit1234]

13. Isn't that the vote Obama ducked out on. That way he could go which way the wind blew.

[Joe for Clark]

15. Good post Windy -

I do not understand why anyone would look upon her signing that Iran statement and not see her as dangerous. She is trying to get elected by swinging a big stick - it is that clear.

And we don't have to take this crap anymore - we elected that congress to do one job - and if they are not capable - not willing to take that chance that WE gave them - then it really is time to clean house.

Joe

[spanone]

16. hillary is just flat wrong imo. and to me it's the most important issue.

i have not made a decision yet.

[BootinUp]

17. You have set up a strawman.

Why do you think one should blind us to the other? Or perhaps you think we are unable to multi-task with regard to foreign policy?

Why do you think we should let Iran have there own little nuclear war with Israel and we should just stay out of it? Just let them get it over with, eh?

Why do you think we should not pressure Iran to end support for terrorist bombing attacks on civilians? I wonder how you would feel if you lived in a civilian area that was targeted.

Why do you hate our soldiers? Iran is supplying weapons and training to people who are killing them.

Saying the words "potential military intervention" is using threating language, putting words together to elicit a desired reaction. It doesn't by itself indicate the future and its relatively inexpensive to employ.

[wuushew]

21. Inexpensive to whom?

The price of oil is at an all time high due in large part to uncontrolled saber rattling.

[BootinUp]

22. I'll give you that, however

there are many Democrats who don't seem to know what is saber rattling and what isn't. Also, its going to be a little difficult to solve these problems while the chimpster is still in the WH, problems that he created too.

[Windy]

23. Why do you think that Iran is such a major threat?

There is no evidence to support your contention. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support the fact Pakistan is an emergent situation, not Iran. There are many motives for the neocons to target Iran. None of them have to do with the security of the US.

No offense, but your undying support for every word muttered by Hillary Clinton and your spin of her every position, like a lot of her supporters, echos the sentiments of those who blindly follow George Bush. I honestly think that the man could actually shoot someone deliberately and his supporters would find some way to spin it and make it seem like a reasoned and logical act.

To say that the Kyl Lieberman amendment and designation of the military of another country as a terrorist organization is synonymous with a path to diplomacy is an absolutely unsupportable position by any manner of logic.

[BootinUp]

24. Read Russ Fiengold's statement #20

Or respond directly to the issues I raised above instead of reeling off a diversionary response.

The gutted K/L resolution is a minor factor in international relations since the issuer was not in authority to change the sanctions. Now that some of the sanctions recommended have been put in place, you can surely admit that two months debating the issue in our government did not result in war but in fact in economic sanctions.

[Windy]

25. Read the resolution. I have read it. I see the implications

I read what Feingold said. I have my own thoughts on the matter that are shared with many, and not just joe/jane citizen, but members of elected government.

by the way... while Feingold may think that Iran could pose a threat, he did not and does not support the use of military strikes. Oh and by the way... he voted NAY on Kyl/Lieberman!

Be careful who you use to try and support Mrs. Clinton's policies.

[BootinUp]

29. I recognize that the Dems split on K/L

If you are interested in my further thoughts on it:

The base of the party has clearly demonstrated their distaste for it (keep in mind these are not foreign policy specialist generally speaking) it would not surprise me if some Democrats in the Senate wished to avoid this fracas regardless of the merits.

Some Democrats were against it on the merits and have no other overriding concern like Webb for instance.

A sanction regime is a reason to continue trying diplomacy not a reason to attack. The language about terrorists is not at all shocking as everyone already knew this, there is no dramatic change in public opinion to be had. The only thing that will effect public opinion is whether any progress is made by either the UN or the US in negotiations.

Some Democrats like Hillary believe that we should find common ground with moderates across the aisle on some of these issues. Why? Because it weakens the hardliners. Give that some thought, I'm sure it will blow your mind one way or the other.

[Windy]

32. There is no merit to the amendment.

[cuke]

26. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it can bully it's neighbors

If Iran starts interfering in Saudi Arabia, Syria or some other SUNNI nation, how eager are they going to be to take Iran on knowing the Iran has the bomb?

It's about the balance of power in the region. Getting a nuke immediately tips the balance of power over to Iran. How is that a good thing?

[Windy]

28. No nation with a nuke is a good thing, however, you don't give bush the green light

for military action and declare that the military of another country is a terrorist organization.
And an FYI...Saudi Arabia is working on a nuke program. We obviously know that Syria is as well.
The fact that we took unilateral action on a soverign country emboldens these other countries to develop weapons that can be used as a stick against agression.

[cuke]

30. Way to put words in my mouth

Where did I say to give * a green light?

BTW, Obama and Dodd both have supported naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist org, so they're criticisms are bullshit. Biden, the only congressmember who doesn't support that is the only one with the grounds to criticize Hillary on that, and he did NOT say it gave * a green light. I you have a pblm with designating the IRG a terrorist org, then you should be complaining about Dodd and Obama also. For some reason, I don't see that in your OP

And yes, unilateral action does make them want a nuke more. Where did I say any different? Please stop acting as if these facts are somehow proof that you are right. The fact that other nations are pursuing nukes is no excuse for ignoring Iran, and that has already been pointed out to you. I don't know why you pursue this point when you know it's a fallacious one.

I'm willing to continue this, but not if you're going to put words in my mouth, or repeat arguments that have already been debunked. You asked a question, and I gave you my answer. You asked why it's a threat for Iran to get a nuke, and I explained why. DOn't take that as justification to dump all of your frustrations out on me

[Windy]

31. I said that it gives bush the green light. I'm not putting words in your mouth

its my personal beleif based upon my reading of the final amendment.

Not a single argument has been debunked. Neither Dodd nor Biden signed onto Kyl/lieberman. And yes, I know full well that Obama did not vote on the amendment before you site that fact.

While some may believe that the Quds force division of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is aiding the Iraqi resistence (those who don't want the americans in their country and yes, those people do exist) you don't, as the government of another country (ie the US)formally designate the military of Iran, a soverign nation, as a terrorist group. By doing so, those who have signed on have given the bush adminsitration tacit approval to use military action against the military of another country. The resolution while admittedly non-binding, is in writing and is a clear, formal statement issued from this country that it is the sense of the United States Senate (a branch of our government)that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization and authorizes the use of military force from within Iraq to combat the iranian RG. The resolution, on its face, could be considered an act of war. That is irresponsible and in no way can be considered a "diplomatic move".

[BootinUp]

33. Some may believe

that Democrats avoided a yes vote simply because the base would attack them for it. And no, the base is not right on this issue. Reasonable people can disagree on how to proceed politically to avoid another unilateral attack.

[MadHound]

34. So, you think that it is OK for the US to declare legit military divisions to be terrorist groups?

What about other countries declaring the US Air Force to be a terrorist group? After all, that whole Shock and Awe thing was really nothing more than one large terrorist attack.

I don't think that you understand the historical scope of this matter. Never, ever has another country condemned any military unit of another country in such an insulting and baseless manner. It simply hasn't been done because it violates principals of international law, custom and basic sovereignty.

Also, do you really believe that Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon, in spite of inspector's findings otherwise? In spite of the nuclear/physical reality that at Iran's current rate of enrichment, they couldn't possibly have enough material for a nuclear bomb any sooner than ten years?

Sorry, but Hillary's Kyle/Lieberman vote was a huge mistake, and simply one more demonstration that she isn't fit for the highest office in the land.

[BootinUp]

35. As I said elsewhere

this vote on the gutted K/L resolution has had more effect in America than overseas. Some good in terms of grabbing the agenda from the neocons.

[MadHound]

36. Way to duck my questions, but I'll answer your point anyway.

Frankly this resolution has sent diplomatic ripples around the world, and has made the situation in the Middle East all that more tense and uncertain. If you don't believe me, then go believe your own lyin' eyes. Check out Al Jazeera and other ME publications. Hell, even the Moscow Times and India Times had negative articles on this.

No, the K/L resolution wasn't regarded as some harmless piece of legislation by other countries. It came off as more, alarming saber rattling by the US.

[BootinUp]

37. I don't think you know what saber rattling means. n/t