WHAT ABOUT IRAN? Which 08' Dem Potential do you agree with?

[FrenchieCat]

Some of our Potential Dem Presidential '08 Aspirants have made statements on the issue of Iran which range from agreeing with how the Bush Admin is handling things for now, to a view that there is a different way, and what that way is...

Without identifying who said what, which statement most closely alignes with your opinion as of now, as to what should be done?

I will reveal who said what at some point along with the published sources of the statements.

For those who can find statements made by those they support which don't seem to appear in the poll....please post the statement and the source and who the person is.

I find this important....because although we will need to continue to deal with the issue of Iraq....Iran will be the next issue of great concern to us in the too near future.

[saltpoint]

1. I was delighted and inspired by the Kerry-Edwards ticket and with the

Al Gore part of the Gore-Lieberman ticket.

Our blue team looks infinitely better to me than their red team.

Iraq is a major threat to Republicans' Congressional chances this fall, but not the only thing they've failed at; therefore I am interested in a Democratic ticket that addresses both U.S. foreign AND domestic policy.

Plenty of work to do on both; plenty of skullduggery by Bush et al to UN-do.

[FrenchieCat]

2. My poll concerns specifically the issue of IRAN.....

and what statement you would most align yourself with.

My poll doesn't say that one should vote or support the potential candidate who's statement they most agree with.

Your post doesn't mention Iran....my poll does.

[saltpoint]

6. I'm not a one-issue voter.

I like the idea of weighing a ticket based on the integration of several issues. Iran is one. But not the only one.

I am encouraged by Sy Hersh's terrific piece early this summer from THE NEW YORKER in which he lays out Pentagon opposition to Bush's possible strike against Iran. I'm not nearly as encouraged by Bush's possible response, given his track record on Iraq for instance, but at least cooler brows at the Pentagon seem to be weighing in.

Which is their job. Now we have to hope Bush is not so puerile or stubborn that he can't take sage advice.

[FrenchieCat]

8. So are you saying you have no opinion on Iran?

Or are you saying that it doesn't matter what anyone has said about Iran, because it is the pentagon that will decide?

[saltpoint]

12. You missed the point on integrated weighing.

It's up there, though.

And I think that's the best context for U.S. foreign policy.

Those aren't our countries.

[MissWaverly]

14. Looks like I voted for Clark, again

I for one, am in favor of tone down the rhetoric, and considering the actions
of both our country and Israel in the M.E. lately, I don't think we can demand that Iran
not have nuclear development programs at this point, we have lost our credibility since 2000.

[karynnj]

39. The problem with the poll is that each of these one line statements

were embedded in more detailed complex comments - to the credit of our politicians. Picking one sentence doesn't fully describe Clark's, Kerry's or Biden's position. The selection of only one component slights the fuller picture actually expressed - and your knowledge of the audience allows the line selected to help or hurt.

[sandnsea]

51. Cherry-picked statements

Sounds vaguely familiar.

[FrenchieCat]

62. The poll line allows only so much.....

Please finish Kerry statement, if you please....or put it in the context that you would desire.

[nealmhughes]

3. I was pretty sure I knew the "We cannot rule and conquer!" part, and found

some very similar rhetoric on the internet from April. I won't spoil it though... It is someone very well educated, dignified, and experienced in foreign affairs.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Actually, I had to edit that quote....cause the exact words used were

it is impossible to "Conquer and occupy"--not we cannot Rule and conquer!

If that changes your vote, I am sorry about my mistake! :blush:

[phillysuse]

4. Wesley Clark - We must talk to Iran

The tone "down the rhetoric quote" is vintage Wes Clark.
He is the only potential candidate who routinely speaks about how we must engage all the players in the region and how we must talk to both Syria and Iran.
After all this is a man who met with his adversay, Milosevich, and talked with him until it was clear that words alone would not extinguish ethnic cleansing and that he had to use military force.
My vote here and my vote in 2008 goes to General Wesley Clark.

[serryjw]

7. May I be the 1st

to second that!
Wesley Clark/Barbara Boxer 2008!

[IndianaGreen]

16. Obviously, Clark is not on AIPAC's payroll

if he were, he would be saying the same stupid things about Iran than most members of Congress are saying. Easy to speak of war when one hasn't been in one!

[Cosmocat]

45. YEP ... Dead give away ...

nm

[orpupilofnature57]

5. I figure the morning briefings with Poppy will really step up now.whoever

it is ,they have to speak to the whole network of friendly fascism that has taken over the government. Al Gore is one of the most intelligent men in America ,I'll say no more.

[NJ Democrats]

9. SO who says what?

Which candidate is which?

[FrenchieCat]

10. I wanted to wait to get a few more voters.....before identifying who said

what.....Because the issue of Iran is an important one from where I sit.

It will be, IMO, the next issue that the GOP "manipulates" for election sake.

[PresidentWar]

13. Democrats need to get with reality.

Iran has every bit the right to formulate the defense they see necessary for their country, just as the US feels that right for itself. Itran also has every right to pursue a nuclear based energy program if it sees fit. And for all the screechers who see armageddon if Iran excersizes these inherent state rights, compare the military aggression records of Iran, Israel and the USA and then get back to me as to who is the worst threat to the world.

[IndianaGreen]

15. I'll chance a guess that it was Wes Clark the one that counseled

"Tone down the rhetoric-- Address Iran’s isolation, security concerns and nuclear power concerns. Find out what the interests of Iran are. It is impossible to conquer and occupy."

It is such a mature statement that only someone like Clark would say.

[Bucky]

17. Crappy poll - "Don't take military strikes off the table" sounds good too

These are issues that don't lend themselves to polls. Polls need to have variable response options that are "exhaustive and mutually exclusive." These aren't.

That said, dealing with international crises like Iran's nuclear ambitions requires a sphinx-like inscrutability married to a Gibralter-like consistancy, and the occasional compromise to keep opponents at the table and negotiating seriously. We actually have a pretty good hand to play, where it comes to containing and engaging Iran. But if, like the Bushies want, America only tries to contain without engaging, all the diplomacy in the world is gonna prove useless.

[FrenchieCat]

19. The quote you refer to was one I chose because there were very

few to select for this particular individual that kind of wrapped up his/her thoughts on Iran at the present. I would find it hard to believe that any potential Dem candidate for 2008 would take off the option of military strike off the table....but some just didn't bother to highlight how far they might go....while others did.

The quote actually goes like this...

"We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons," (blank) declared, endorsing America's current approach of working with the Europeans using diplomatic levers.

But {blank) said the "carrots" on offer have to come with heavy pressure, such as "serious sanctions." In terms of the "stick" of military strikes, (blank) said, "I would never take any option off the table."

[Bucky]

20. It sounds a little bit like someone still needing to prove toughness, cred

I'll guess Clinton, Edwards, or Bayh for the "don't take it off the table" if that was the main emphasis rather than a quick aside or response to a deliberate charge of "taking military option off the table." Someone who's required by his/her advisors to show 'em they're tough.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Boy....you're good, Bucky!

:thumbsup:

Actually, if you see my answers below, Edwards, Hillary and Bayh all felt this was required to say....

[FrenchieCat]

18. It is my opinion that the GOP are dealing with Iran in the same manner

as they dealt with Iraq...in terms of "setting up" that issue to be used for these elections or for the next ones....although they are going about it a bit more methologically.

However, the game is the same.

The question is will Democrats (I personally know what most Republicans will do) do what they did the last time......in an attempt of trying to ensure sanctions via the U.N....along with some kind of ultimatum on Iran's right for persuing a Nuclear program, in reality, end up giving Bush the power to bomb areas of Iran?

Will that be the "new" resolution that Dems will be found apologizing for having voted for or supporting in our election future?

[NCarolinawoman]

21. Didn't Seymour Hersh say that a lot of Generals have threatened to resign

if we attack Iran? I think there were a few exceptions (a couple of screwy ones in the Air force?) Hersh said that even Pace had warned Bush/Cheney that the economy would tank because attacking Iran would mean $150.00 a barrel oil, at least.

The other day I heard General Barry McCafferty say that attacking Iran would be insane, and would result in our troops in Iraq being attacked by over one million Iranian soldiers.

Wes Clark has always said we need to have direct talks with the Iranians and stop outsourcing the talks to the Europeans. He also told a Fox News audience on Dayside, (who seemed to be all gung-ho for attacking Iran), that they better be prepared to see their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren in uniform if such an attack ever took place. Obviously, he was trying to knock some sense into them with a nice visual reality check.

I have a feeling Al Gore and John Kerry would agree with Wes Clark; although I am not familiar with any of their recent comments on this.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

35. Attacking Iran will be a different ball game

Iran has not been to war since the 80's. They did not have continuous sanctions through the 90's & into the 00's. They have an oil industry functioning close to full capacity. They have had the opportunity of rebuilding their arsenal. Saddam Hussein's hands were tied by sanctions. So he put up little or no resistance in the phase of the war he was involved in.

Iran will be a bloodier war. If Bush declares war against them he will help us relieve a Vietnam with 10 of thousands military deaths. We should be thankful his campaign in iraq was not successful. He would have immediately declared war in Iran. This was his plan all along. I think from there he was going to send the troops to North Korea.

[Cosmocat]

46. Just what do people think the outcome would be ???

in attacking Iran ???

These freaks want to attribute every single terrorist group on the planet to them ... SO ... What would happen if we went and bombed them ??? Right ...

These freaks want to blame the problems in Iraq on Iran ... Well, what would our troops and the people of Iraq face if we attacked Iran ??? Right ...

People want to complain about gas prices ... Want to see 4 dollars a gallon over night ... Attack Iran ...

It just is mind bending ... As noted, it is the same set up as Iraq was ... Sanctions ... Iran is to Russia and China what Saudi Arabia is to the US ... NO WAY they put any real sanctions on Iran ... SO, we will hear about how sanctions are not working, and we have to attack them ...

BTW ... As noted, with China and Russia being so tied in with Iran, what would happen if we attacked Iran ... Yeah, don't think they would be real happy about it ...

It just is a SERIOUS disaster waiting to happen ...

[Donna Zen]

22. Meetup 4 insanity

...coming soon to the Oval Office.

Bomb Iran? And then what...? Will they just throw their hands up in the air and say: "Gosh, you're right...can we be friends now?" It doesn't work that way. Aside from the little problem of the entire world hating our guts, people will be falling over themselves to provide Iran with nukes.

And the bush's have set up a double-bind scenario: we'll talk about your stopping enrichment, if you stop enrichment first. Now there's a real deal. Iran doesn't want to talk to France about not bombing them because France doesn't want to bomb them. They actually do want to talk to us. It's embarrassing that the Iranians make more sense than the US government.

This is total mess.

[FrenchieCat]

24. ANSWERS AS TO WHOM SAID WHAT.......

JOHN KERRY:
Senator John F. Kerry warned yesterday that Iran's nuclear ambitions pose a ''deadly serious" threat to world security, and said that the US invasion of Iraq, and the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, have probably accelerated Iran's weapons program.
Kerry said that he hoped the threat of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, while allowing ''peaceful use of nuclear power."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/02/14/kerry_speaks_of_iran_iraq_and_another_run/
"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together,"
http://www.nysun.com/article/26606


JOHN EDWARDS:
"We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons," he declared, endorsing America's current approach of working with the Europeans using diplomatic levers.
But he said the "carrots" on offer have to come with heavy pressure, such as "serious sanctions."
In terms of the "stick" of military strikes, he said, "I would never take any option off the table."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


EVAN BAYH:
He warned that the Iranian regime “may be only months away from having the capacity to build a nuclear bomb.” Saying “a nuclear Iran is not negotiable,” Bayh called for imposing economic and diplomatic sanctions on Tehran to persuade the mullahs to drop their nuclear weapons ambitions.

If they don’t, he said, the United States must impose “consequences” including the use of military force.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11133256/


MARK WARNER:
“Whether it is a jihadist leader, the potential for weapons of mass destruction, state sponsored terror, we absolutely must rally the world in a concerted effort to stop Iranian expansionism. I think it is a treat to the whole region, not only our troops in Iraq, but Israel, to the west and to the world, as well as to states all across the region.
At the same time, I think in the next six to nine months you will see what happens in Iran, whether the world can come together. I do think--and I'll give the administration credit on this--I'm glad they've engaged with Iran."
http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/06/warner-on-iraq-and-iran.html


RUSS FEINGOLD:
The U.S. should respond by persuading Iran to "back off on nuclear weapons" rather than with military threats. It's a far better approach than warmongering,"
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060901/NEWS09/609010370


WES CLARK:
the United States must "tone down the rhetoric” in its ongoing verbal joust with Iran over nuclear development .
"If we don’t talk directly with the Iranians, we are not going to move this forward,” Clark said. "We must address Iran’s isolation, security concerns and nuclear power concerns. Let Ahmadinejad look like the hothead. The United States has to work toward a solution to this crisis.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/28/112949.shtml
Clark had a clear answer for an audience member who insisted that the U.S. cannot deal with adherents to a "fanatical ideology." Said Clark: "No matter how fanatical people are, they still have interests and objectives" and the U.S. should find out what the interests of Iran and Syria are and determine if any of those are in common with the U.S. interests. Those nations are not direct threats to the U.S. (which is almost heresy on Fox News) he said, so the U.S. should pursue talks with them because it is impossible to conquer and occupy those countries.
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/01/wesley_clark_delivers_another_wow_performance.php


HILLARY CLINTON:
“Let’s be clear about the threat we face now. A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not—must not—permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.” To be sure, we need to cajole China and Russia into going along with diplomatic and economic sanctions, but “we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran—that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Nice research pulling this all together Frenchie, Thanks n/t

[FrenchieCat]

26. Wes also spoke of the fact that we might have to accept or at least

comtemplate a future with a Nuclear Capable Iran.

He urged that we at least think of that possibility as opposed to calling it unacceptable.

Do you remember where he said this? It wasn't very long ago. If you know, please give me that source. I want to keep it for the future......when the saber rattling goes into "full throttle"!

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. I can give you a good lead

Wes said that when he went to Iowa this year, at the meeting he had with some of his supporters there in reply to a question from one of them. I don't remember if it was blogged at Clark Community Network or put up on Securing America, but I know that was when he said it. I know I posted about it here on DU, but I doubt it had it's own thread. I'll look too.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Here it is Frenchie.

Turns out I did start a DU thread on this. Here is the DU thread:

"Clark speaking about Iran"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The exchange was included in one of Clark's podcasts:

"Common Voices in Iowa"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/6070

Here are Clark's comments about Iran from that Clarkcast:

"Panelist #3: What's your opinion? The President of Iran sent an eighteen-page letter to President Bush. I've not seen a full transcript of that, and I don't think-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Neither have I.

Panelist #3: -probably we ever will. Right. What would be your idea of, of a correct response to that letter. Do you see that as, as a good opening?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Everything in diplomacy is intended to advance the interest of one party at the expense of another. I mean, diplomacy is, it's another form of struggle. This was a measured strategy on the part of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's been no friend. On the other hand, my experience is need to talk to people, especially before you bomb them, you should talk to them. And so, I've been pressing the United States to have- open a dialog with Iran for some time. I'm not sure if the dialog will talk them out of going for a nuclear option, but I think the dialog is the right place to start. I think it's still possible to start with a dialog to propose some regional security measures that could raise the sense of security of nations and people throughout the region that might be productive. And you might be able, you might be able to avoid what seems to be an almost certain showdown coming with Iran.

I've said the military option has to remain on the table, but in truth the United States government should be planning for three options. It should be planning for first, how to dissuade Iran from getting, from wanting to have a nuclear weapon. That's the first option. Second option is how to live with an Iran if they get a nuclear weapon. And I'm not saying you could ever solve that option, but you should be looking at it. I'm not saying that it's an acceptable option, but you should be asking yourself, 'What would it take for us to be able to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon?' What would it take? A change of government? A disarmament? An international presence? What would it take? We should be asking that question, because it's only when you've asked that question that you can then go to the third line of analysis, which said, well, what if you can't dissuade them, and you can't live with it? Then what are your military options? There are clearly two set's of military options. One set is a very narrow option that goes after the nuclear production facilities themselves, and another is a much broader military option that says, not only are we going to take out your nukes, but we're going to make sure that you have no means to retaliate against us after, after you do so. So, we're taking action against Iranian interests throughout the Gulf. We're going to go after Iranian interests in Lebanon or wherever you might be, and that includes, you know, Hezbollah worldwide. We're going to arrest you wherever you are. It's, it's a huge, big option, and I don't know how feasible it is, and I don't know how you get out of it once you launch into it. But again, these three lines of analysis, they're the responsibilities of the government, and if we're not doing that, then shame on us. We should be. If they were serious, they'd be talking to the Iranians as a first step. And they're not."

Like I said in my original thread:

I found it telling how Wes Clark stated that any rational contingency planning by the United States should consider a scenario under which we would peacefully co-exist with a nuclear armed Iran. That is not politician double talk, and it is not something a politician being guided by focus group polling would dare utter. Conventional political wisdom in the United States is that the question is only HOW to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, not whether Iran MUST be stopped from getting them.

We can live in an idealistic bubble and pretend that major political leaders in the Democratic Party would never support launching a preemptive war against Iran. I don't agree. I think far too many of them have already roped themselves into that position by accepting the argument that Iran can not be dealt with rationally, and that it is flat out impossible for the United States to ever allow Iran to become nuclear armed, under any conceivable circumstances.

Some may be troubled by hearing Clark mention, and not totally rule out, a future military option against Iran, to which I say welcome to the world we live in, rather than the world we want. If you listen to other Democratic leaders, not a single one I know of categorically rules out American use of force against Iran to stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. Some embrace macho posturing, and some carefully tip toe around saying anything clear at all about possible military action, but none rule out the option. Clark levels with us, which is something you can always count on him to do.

[karynnj]

40. The NEW YORK SUN!!!!!!!!! I would never use a Washington Times

or New York Sun response to characterize a Clark position. The Boston Globe article was from their local section, not a military or political reporter. Is there a reason you ignored better sources?

Kerry has answered the Iran question on MTP and many other serious venues. These excepts do not reflect his position well- and you are smart enough to know that. Try taking his Debate 1 response or his MTP response -

From the debate response you would see that Kerry's response on peaceful use of nucleur fuel related to Iran getting Nucleur fuel - processed by the Soviet Union - rather than having them develop the technology to convert uranium. Hagel has spoken of this as well.

You are better than this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Kerry has a good position on Iran

and he has spoken out more than once about it. The need for direct diplomacy with Iran is an issue that Wes Clark has been providing repeated leadership on for years during his media appearances. It is something that Clark has highly prioritized, but I certainly appreciate John Kerry's contributions on this also.

[karynnj]

42. Thank you -

I think the problem is that what Frenchie tried to do is that the quotes for any of the people who are Foreign policy experts are incomplete. Here, Kerry's looks completely dovish and naive - and he's neither. It also hinges on the word "hopes" - which was likely the BG reporters word.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Actually, I suggested that if you didn't see your candidate's position

as you understood it to be in the poll (in the OP...if you go take a look), that you might want to post the position as you know it, the source, and to mention that individual's name......and so you could, Karynnj. I suggested that very specifically for a reason.....

In looking up a concrete position from John Kerry, this is what I found (and in fact I provided two sources--one being the Boston Globe and both used very similar wording).

Your assistance on pin pointing Kerry's position, therefore, would very much be appreciated in making it just that much clearer.

But actually, I find John Kerry's response to be one of the most level headed....regardless of the source!

[blm]

67. Kerry's position is that Iran is FIVE YEARS AWAY from any nuclear weapon

and that there is no urgency to interfere forcefully - the US could use diplomatic pressures for four years before even thinking about military force.

I heard him say it last July.

He also put forth the idea that as president, he would offer Iran the nuclear material they needed for their energy needs in exchange for stopping their nuclear programs.

I think you can't cherry pick certain statements as stand alone when they are a small part of an overall view - especially with more comprehensive talkers like Kerry and Clark. They speak to the many aspects of these security issues, and taking out one paragraph as nif that sums it up isn't accurate UNLESS that paragraph is set up as their summation statement.

[FrenchieCat]

70. I understand....but if you read what I wrote as Kerry's statement

it was what I could find that had been published.

Please provide your source for the above.....as I am bookmarking this thread for future reference (for myself, of course).

Thanks.

[IndianaGreen]

74. Is Hillary the newest Senator from Israel?

A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel

Pandering to her Brooklyn wackos is another black mark on Hillary!

I much prefer Wes Clark's rational approach:

"No matter how fanatical people are, they still have interests and objectives" and the U.S. should find out what the interests of Iran and Syria are and determine if any of those are in common with the U.S. interests. Those nations are not direct threats to the U.S. (which is almost heresy on Fox News) he said, so the U.S. should pursue talks with them because it is impossible to conquer and occupy those countries.

Go Clark!

[FrenchieCat]

76. Here's some good stuff for you, IndianaGreen.....

from today.

Watch Clark kick some "righteous" booty..... http://www.ptnine.com/wes090506.WMV

Lemme know if you like.

[IndianaGreen]

80. Clark tore a new asshole on Neil Cavuto!

Disgusting how Cavuto kept trying to smear President Clinton with 9-11. Clark was great! A must see! Thanks!

[dmosh42]

27. So what!

The media has followed the administration as usual, and is beating the drums like no one else has nuclear power. We know India, Pakistan, China and Russia have nukes with delivery systems. Some others, like Israel, we do not know for sure. So what's the big deal. The deterrent has always been, "if you use it, then there will be retaliation". This administration knew there was a huge split in Iraq between the Sunni and Shia, but went ahead with their 'democratic, reform. Now they realize that Iraq is going to become a satellite of Iran with the Shia majority, so maybe they don't know how to get out of it without attacking Iran? The rest of the world is dragging it's feet because they know we are being led by our own religious loonies.

[FrenchieCat]

28. So what? I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, nor

how I should respond.

What's the big deal about what? Whether there will or will not be a solution on how to deal with Iran short of going to war...and if so, what that solution will be? Sorry, but to me, that's a big deal.

[dmosh42]

29. What it means

It means that none of those people responded with the answer I want to see. The administration is pushing this need to 'solve this problem' again, like Iraq, and everyone is responding like they want.( the Bush gang) We, the United States, don't have to solve this problem, because there might not be a real problem. Let's see if the rest of the world sees it as a real threat.

[haypops]

33. Without attention --

Without nurture, negotiations, and attention situations can get worse. In some respects I agree with you that Iran is not as great a threat as some(insert your favorite administration official here) may assume. Yet another Iranian air liner crashed. They blame it on poor Russian technology. Perhaps it's their own incompetence. Another article indicates that several of their centrifuge cascades seem to be operating poorly. Professor Juan Cole says that Iran has enough radioactive material to lite a watch dial. So there are plenty of evidence that the situation is not so serious. Clark's answer is the correct one to put the lid on this episode and the bigger question of America's place in the world(to be a Bush like irritant or a Kennedy like beacon of power for world good).

[zcflint09]

30. I voted for Wes--not a shock

The rhetoric is unmatched in the rest of the comments. Clark is a true diplomat and definitly knows what he's talking about when it comes to US Foreign Policy. For the life of me, I can't understand why he's not the Democratic frontrunner for 08.

[alvarezadams]

32. Reality

Iran is, for better or for worse, a sovereign nation.

It has been threatened by the US, off and on, for 2 decades now. It has been the victim of US intromission for half a century, including the overthrow of a democratically elected government. When it began to open up to the West the US gave it short shrift. It has seen that Iraq - a non nuke power - was invaded and how N. Korea, a nuke power, has not been invaded.

So what, as an Iranian leader, would you do? For all practical purposes the US' short-sighted and selfish policies have virtually manipulated Iran into pursuing the only deterent that can work in this day and age.

Is Iran a worse custodian of nukes than Israel or the US? I don't see how; if Iran ever becomes a nuclear power it will come under the madness of MAD and will be open to OUR nuclear deterent that a non-nuke power can never be.

I don't see how we can make a moral stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions. They break the NPT? We've been breaking it for decades... as well as ABM and space treaties and international law. They support Hizbollah? It's debateable if they are terrorists, and certainly less so than many SOA graduates that we've supported. Israel? Please... tell it to someone that doesn't take easily to pablum.

Solution? Perhaps we should identify the PROBLEM first. And the biggest problem is one of the rivalry between a regional power and a superpower... and senseless pride and ideological groupthink has more to do with said problem than anything else.

It has been said that empathy is a liberal trait, largely absent from the conservative mindset. Students of history are taught to look at ethnocentric maps in order to better understand the concerns and interests of any given nation in history.

We have Iran surrounded - with bases, with troops next door... What's happening there has everything to do with our conceived role in the world.

So the solution is: embrace international law instead of abusing it. Stop hypocrisy and double standards. Recognize past errors and make amends. Open up a diplomatic delegation forchrissakes - and negotiate from a position of open goals, common interests and peaceful coexistence.

Or did the misconceptions of the Cold War sink in so deep as to hotwire us into seeing bogey monsters everywhere (except where we support them)?

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Clark talks about how the United States has forces surrounding Iran

I've seen him say, on FOX of all places, that it is the United States that has Iran surrounded militarily, that it is the United States that has overwhelming military power, that it is the United States that has interfered with Irans government in the past. It is amazing to see him do that type of reality check for viewers on a conservative news network, but he is naturally a teacher by instinct. Clark was pointing out that to understand the complexities of the situation with Iran it is necessary to understand how it appears from an Iranian perspective also. Real problem solving and diplomacy requires that.

[alvarezadams]

37. I've never been a Clark fan

but I am happily surprised that he was willing to spill out what must be logical for anyone with military training (historians learned the "map trick" from the military after all). To do so to the cogdis brigade of the Faux universe is particularly refreshing, not that it will change anything that passes for minds amongst those folks.

He sees the details of the problem clearly (unlike neocons), but what was his solution? If it is diplomacy, with which objectives and through which means?

I am heartily sorry that American democracy has seen fit to relegate the electorate to a state of ignorance regarding foreign affairs. For some reason our politicos have unilaterally decided that foreign affairs are too complicated or too important to reveal to the electorate.

Another point in Clark's favour is his "teaching" aspect. We need a didactic potus that understands the situation and that can explain it to the electorate.

I'll have to look into him a bit more but I must say that I am not too fond of military men in political roles.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Supporting a career military man now is a first for me

but live and learn. The bottom line is I am supporting the person who had that career, not his abstract resume. The unique career that Wes Clark had in the military, coupled with his intrinsic interests abilities and character, in my opinion leave him far more knowledgeable and realistic about international relations than most anyone else on the American political scene today. I know Clark has traveled in the Middle East extensively, and he maintains a full range of contacts in the region with important constituencies in most of the major nations there. I have no doubt that he has an appropriately complex understanding of how diplomacy can and should proceed, he was deeply involved with the International Dayton Accords, but Clark has learned a good bit about American politics since he declared for President in 04.

Regarding Iran he's learned about K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). Now Clark too has talking points that he makes sure to keep hammering to the American public. They always start and end with "We need to engage in Direct talks with the Iranians, NOW." Clark also emphasizes that Iran has a long and proud tradition as both a nation state and regional power and that Iran's legitimate regional interests have to be acknowledged in any negotiations that take place. The other main point that Clark always emphasizes is that there are interlocking regional security issues and matters of strategic assets that transcend the borders of the individual nations states of that region and that any attempt to achieve peaceful stability in the region will need to involve regional talks involving all of the key players effected, and other valid interested parties, not restricted to the United States. Finally Clark hammers that it is our responsibility as an acknowledged world power to take leadership in making diplomacy happen, and not just tag along behind the Europeans and the United Nations following developments from the side lines.

And Clark never forgets to remind the American people about how long lasting, dangerous and costly both to the United States and the world, the failure to peacefully resolve our outstanding issues with Iran would be.

[FrenchieCat]

44. At this time in our history....I'd rather support a Strategically trained

Oxford Rhodes scholar who has been right all along on Foreign policy issues then supporting those civilian leaders who are now saying they are sorry for their "mistakes" on issues concerning life vs. Death; Peace vs. War.

Give me someone who has negotiated peace over someone who voted for a blank check to war, anytime!

[alvarezadams]

48. HAS he been right though?

He might have the strategic geopolitical situation down but my issue is with root causes.

Neocons and neolibs (including the DLC) understand the "war on a tactic" from a Cold War perspective. They fail to realize that the issues aren't much different from those of Vietnam: the time for imperialism (of the direct or indirect kind) is over, that Wilson was proved right regarding self-determination. They also fail to realize the socioeconomic situation, ignoring the North-South divide between the wealthy and the poor that is the undercurrent of virtually all conflict today.

Iran lost its democracy when it tried to control its natural resources as opposed to letting themselves be robbed blind by multinational oil and its US/UK tools. The US/UK installed the type of pro-corporate quasi-fascist dictator that has been our wont for decades - justified with the bagatelle of anti-communism. NEVER has the US/West realized that to beat the combination of Communism and nationalism you don't need weapons... but social justice.

So where does Clark stand on that particular issue? Is he another pro-globalist? Or does he follow the concept of FDR's "Good Neighbor Policy" and the Marshall Plan?

[FrenchieCat]

50. Clark has consistently advocated that we look at the root issues.....

Of terrorism. That poverty, hopelessness and extremism taught are the root causes of terrorism.

Clark believes in American Soft Power....meaning the power that the United States holds when it lives by the value it professes and leads by example, not forcing change at the point of a gun! He believes that Blue Jeans and Music is more powerful than bombs.

NYT article dated October 2003 -
"Besides sidling out of Iraq, a President Clark would strengthen ''and use'' international institutions, ''repair'' trans-Atlantic relations, ''resolve'' the nuclear challenges of North Korea and Iran, help settle ''disputes'' between India and Pakistan and Israel and the Palestinians, and help to ''ease the ongoing conflicts'' in Africa. He would increasingly employ ''the weapons of law enforcement rather than warfare in attacking terrorism,'' focus more on the ''root causes'' of Islamic terrorism and provide ''substantial economic and political development assistance'' to stimulate ''far-reaching reforms in critical societies in the Middle East.''"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00EEDA173EF935A15753C1A9659C8B63&sec=&pagewanted=2

[alvarezadams]

54. Good for him

I'll have to look closer at the guy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Try this for starters

This is on Clark's archived 2004 Presidential campaign website, taken from an addresse he delivered in 2003:

General Wesley K. Clark Remarks on Restoring America's Alliances

Council on Foreign Relations
New York, NY
November 20, 2003


..."We will not succeed in transforming the Middle East by threatening to change regimes by military action. A better model is offered by the joint approach Europe and America took after the Cold War to transform Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Together, we successfully promoted stability, security, economic reform and democratic progress throughout that region. We offered these states the opportunity to work with and participate in Atlantic and European institutions. They were encouraged to settle historic disputes, integrate their economies and adopt open political systems. Our emphasis was upon carrots not sticks, inclusion not exclusion, assistance and encouragement not sanctions and coercion. As a NATO commander, I worked with the countries in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. I saw the salutary effects of these programs on the evolution of these countries first-hand."

http://www.clark04.com/speeches/012/

[alvarezadams]

55. Not so hot here

My "significant other" is Russian so I have a lot of anecdotes about "economic reform" and "democratic process" in E. Europe.

Pending further investigation he's lost a lot of points with me with those comments. One helluva lot.

At least the economic, political and social chaos that laissez faire brought to E. Europe gave me the opportunity to meet and court my significant other... and yes, the freedom for her and many others to leave their families in order to earn whatever living they can elsewhere and to send money back to the homeland. Mine was lucky - she's a professional. Many Russians we've met have had to partake the most reprehensible activities so that their families can survive.

Great success story there, Clark.

WRONG.

[FrenchieCat]

57. So I you saying that Russia would be better off as it was prior

to the end of the Cold war?.......

What happened to date with the Russian Economy and Democracy after the fact....is part of Russia's own responsibility...wouldn't you say?

There are also a lot of other states that were part of the Soviet Bloc, if you recall. Are you saying that all of them are no better off regardless of the struggle?

I've seen many of these citizens in France, as an example.....being tourists, etc....

I realize that it didn't all turn out perfectly....and that the "capitalism" probably went further than should have been required. But democratic elections (maybe Russia is experiencing some difficulties in that area at the moment....with PUtin and all) have occurred.....and has got to be better than the totalitarian regimes that they replaced.

[alvarezadams]

63. Non sequitor

From the perspective of a working stiff, times were far better under the Soviets. I know that it's shocking but it's true.

It's "there own responsibility"? Frankly I don't see what that has to do with it. It seems that you're implying that we pushed the bitter pill but since they took it any adverse effect is their own fault.

As for the rest of the old Soviet bloc, you'd have to analyze cause and effect first. WHY were they poorly off before and, while you're at it, just how much better off are they now.

Don't get me wrong - I don't defend Communism. Nor Capitalism - I am not an extremist. The nature of the Cold War and decades of propaganda was to radicalize both economic systems to the detriment of both.

I am an historian but I make a living as a consultant. My partner is a lawyer and one of his specialties is "legalizing" foreign immigrants. Most Albanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Rumanians, Poles (etc) that he's "legalized" happen to be... prostitutes. I guess that's progress, no?

Is Putin better than what he replaced? Depends on your perspective. Before it was next to impossible to have your electricity or gas cut off in winter - now it's as easy as pie. Between Brezhnev and Putin, most non-ultranationalistic Russians would probably choose Brezhnev... if the bait of POTENTIAL wellbeing wasn't there.

The problem is that the potential goes to 5%...

My significant other's family is large. Six bros and sis' between 18 and 28. Four nephews... And both parents dead. Their "pension" pays for the pickup of garbage and water - the rest is paid for by us... Previously they would have had no problem surviving on the "orphan's pension". Without us they'd be... probably dead. There's no more industry in Smolensk, no jobs. Outside Moscow and St. Petersburg you have a subsistence economy... kinda like pre-Revolutionary Russia.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. But you partially miss my point, which was in reply to your point, lol

I was married to a politically radical German women who lived in West Berlin before moving to the States for a number of years. After the end of our marriage she moved back to Germany and did community organizing in the Eastern half after reunification. We remain friends so I have somewhat of a sense of the advantages and disadvantages of both systems on the lives of people native to the former East Germany. It is a very mixed bag to say the least and it varies from region to region and from person to person. If asked to make a choice between the two political systems, if my own life were to be determined by how I chose between them, I would have opted for the West under protest. Partially because hard core totalitarianism advanced further in the Soviet system than it has here to date, and so organizing to change it from within, from the bottom up, at it's extreme was literally more life threatening under State Socialism for more people than it has been in the West during my life time, even factoring in the experience of Black Panthers and other American dissidents. Opposition could be and was efficiently silenced in any number of ways within the Soviet Bloc. The most polluted areas of the world tended to be inside the Soviet Bloc, no movement had the power to force containment vessels over nuclear reactors, for example, within the Soviet bloc. But health care was a right, and housing was subsidized, though the freedom to live where one wanted wasn't guaranteed.

Be that as it all may have been, the relevant facto to our discussion is that the Western Capitalistic Democracies were locked in a struggle for influence and potentially for survival with the then Soviet model Communist Bloc. It may have been called the Cold War but it got pretty damn hot in some places at times. Both systems have or had some tragic flaws, most objective people will concede that, but the competition between them was potentially deadly. We really did almost have a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.

So if the decades long competition that existed between the two systems is acknowledged as a given, and if each system refused to budge in their world view over which is superior, or in their desire to prevail over the opposing system, the question then became, how could that competition be resolved without massive bloodshed on both sides? I cited that speech by Clark because we were discussing the age old question of sticks or carrots, violent or non violent resolution of differing world views, incentives or threats to induce a desired shift in behavior. Clark effectively counters the Bush Administration's preferred methodology for transforming the Middle East in a direction most Americans would, rightly or wrongly, consider "progress", by contrasting how the cold War ended with Bush's invasion of Iraq, theoretically to bring them "freedom and Democracy", factoring in PNAC's follow up plans to do the same to Iran and Syria and the Sudan etc. Clark's quoted comment was fundamentally less about the advantages of bringing capitalism to oppressed communist nations than it was about the advantages of achieving one's goals non militarily, with the at least tacit consent and participation of those who one once opposed, by offering a substantiative package of incentives and assistance to those whose cooperation you are seeking.

P.S. I think it is only fair to say that there isn't a single politician elected to any Governorship, or Congressional Seat in America, who would say anything different than what Clark said about the advantages of the end result of the end of the Cold War for Eastern Europe. You talk about a more nuanced picture, and I understand that, but it isn't fair to single out Clark negatively for his views. All major American politicians make the same argument Clark did about the advantages that "freedom" brought Eastern Europe. The disagreements they may articulate are over the means, not the ends. Right or wrong, I doubt you can find any Democrat or Republican running for President who will argue that the continuation of the Soviet Union would have been better for the people of Russia than the "end of Communism" there.

[alvarezadams]

82. As I said, non sequitor

The question isn't about the continuation or non-continuation of the Soviet political regime (which ultimately was right wing/nationalist and is returning to the same) but the senseless echoing of talkingpoint memes that tend to reinforce rw socioeconomic indoctrination.

Economically and socially speaking the entire East Bloc is far worse off - from the perspective of the common Joe (or Ivan).

At the risk of being tildied as a Marxist (as I have been a number of times today), I reject extremes on any side of the spectrum. Laissez faire/neoliberalism/globalism is precisely the system that made its opposite (Communism) attractive or even possible. With the disappearence of the threat of Communism and the hegemony of the US, conditions are fast returning to pre-Revolutionary squallor. Even in the US the middle class' wealth and wellbeing is being eroded.

It is true that virtually all politicians echoe the meaningless statements. They should know better.

But then again a democracy needs an opposition party - and we don't have one.

[SPCAworks]

43. mark

warner pulling a strong second place.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Mark Warner? Where? "strong 2nd" with 9 votes is kinda of stretching it...

and his is pretty much the standard "safe" line....from what I read....a kind of "wait and see" posture. Further, I'm certainly not so sure about his crediting this administration for being "engaged" with Iran. I don't see the so much engagement.....as I see saber rattling coming from our side after years of neglecting Iran...cause we were sooo busy in Iraq, with the U.S. helping Al Qeada recruit more for their side, and all.

But then, that's my take! :shrug:

MARK WARNER:
“Whether it is a jihadist leader, the potential for weapons of mass destruction, state sponsored terror, we absolutely must rally the world in a concerted effort to stop Iranian expansionism. I think it is a treat to the whole region, not only our troops in Iraq, but Israel, to the west and to the world, as well as to states all across the region.
At the same time, I think in the next six to nine months you will see what happens in Iran, whether the world can come together. I do think--and I'll give the administration credit on this--I'm glad they've engaged with Iran."
http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/06/warner-on-iraq-and-iran.html

[Catchawave]

56. Frenchie?

Would you stop it. Just stop it.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I beg your pardon?

How is it that you're gonna come into this thread and tell me to stop. Stop what? Please elaborate! ???

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

60. wow.....

Knowing where folks stand is "Bashing"? :wow:

Please let me know what I am allowed to discuss in order for you to feel "clean"? Thanks!

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

66. So it's alright to attack me personally......me and my "dogs"?

because you don't like my poll?

Who would have thunk it? :shrug:

Actually, it's kind of sad....to see you get as upset as you do based on a DU poll that doesn't Bash anyone far as I can see....but attempts to get a conversation going on where our politico stand on a VERY IMPORTANT issue...which I guess to you, just ain't worth knowing.

I surmise that in order not to be badgered by you, I should just go ahead and censor myself.

Sorry, but I don't think so.


I'm not sure why you are calling me sweetie. Hard to know how I should interpret that....considering that I see that you aren't too thrilled with me. Try not to call me out of my name......and I won't it either.

[Catchawave]

69. .

:spray:

[FrenchieCat]

71. What? You're drinking the koolaid?

Don't do it!

Iran is the next focus for the GOP to attempt to manipulate the congress, even if the Koolaid has you thinking that it isn't.

[Texas_Kat]

52. You forgot your sarcasm tag

I can only imagine that your comment was meant as sarcasm, so here's one just for you.

:sarcasm:

[No Exit]

61. Dear pols: What I want is: DO NOT INVADE IRAN. PERIOD.

END OF STATEMENT.

I do not want the U.S. to invade Iran. Iran is not enough of a threat to us to warrant an invasion and loss of life (and treasure) by us. Do not invade it (nor Syria) with our American troops. Period.

[blm]

68. Kerry said there is no NEED to attack Iran - they are FIVE YEARS AWAY from

any armed nuclear capability, and don't let anyone in the administration tell you otherwise.

He said that gives the US plenty of time to do what it needs to do in way of diplomatic alterntatives.

[FrenchieCat]

72. May I have the source for his statement?

I tried to find the correct info, and it looks like I didn't. I want it because I am bookmarking this thread....and would prefer to have correct information if my take on Kerry's prescription for Iraq was mistaken or incomplete.

Thanks!

[blm]

75. He told it to the crowd at the Dem reunion in Columbia, SC last July.

There were about 600 of us there.

I am sure we aren't the only crowd he spoke to over the summer where he made this statement. The first writeup I saw about the event I attended was an article written a MONTH LATER in The State - they didn't include many quotes from the speech.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Which is why I couldn't find the statement....I'm sure.....

cause it wasn't published.....Cause if it had been, I would have used it.

[No Exit]

83. I don't have the source, but I think Kerry said it during one of the

debates.

That aside, I don't believe Iran is near getting its first nuke, but what if they were? The Soviet Union had LOTS of nukes! We were told they were the Ultimate Evil. We were told this for decades! So there we were, with this powerful, evil, frightening enemy, which had nukes on nukes, and... we didn't invade them. And later on, the Soviet Union turned out to be NOT a threat. It caved in like a wet paper bag.

War--especially aggressive, unprovoked war--will never, ever make us safer. It will always result in our being less safe, if we are the aggressors. It's that simple.

The idea that Iran is a dire, immediate, threat to us is LUDICROUS.

[citizen snips]

65. what needs to happen

is that we need to have a timeline to get out of Iraq and we to get rid of our own nuclear weapons.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Wouldn't that be great?

I'm just not gonna hold my breath though.

[kaleagal]

77. This is the best kind of poll I've ever taken.

It helps people to realize whether they actually agree with their candidate and not just be for them because of all the various reasons people have for supporting candidates, like, He/She is from the party I vote for, or He/She can win, or He's/She's nice or charming, or He/She really cares about people, etc.

Excellent idea, Frenchie Cat.
:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

79. Plus it helps us see who are the leaders, who plays it safe....and who

goes one way then make U-Turns.....

Since this Iran thing is just now boiling....I'm keeping my eyes open and I'm gonna pay attention on who's who, and what's what.....because you see, to me, that's important.

I personally I'm not about to support anyone leading from the rear.....
Cause we're in the situation that we are in for a reason.....
and it will take some heavyweight strong leadership comes crunchtime to get us out....
cause this shit ain't no game....what-SO-ever!

I ain't into the Okey-Dokey politician stuff no more!