Lieberman: "diplomacy is only likely to succeed if it is backed by a credible threat"

[sabra]

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-joeiran0613.artjun13,0,3715082.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

<snip>

He is not urging such a strike at the moment, but Connecticut's junior senator argued Tuesday that "diplomacy is only likely to succeed if it is backed by a credible threat of consequences."

While stressing that any specific military action would be up to the generals, Lieberman said he foresaw not a massive invasion, but knocking out camps where Iranians are training and equipping terrorists who then try to kill American soldiers.

"The United States military - despite the ongoing challenges posed by Iraq and Afghanistan - remains the most powerful, most effective fighting force on the planet," he said in an e-mail interview Tuesday. "The Iranians are making a grave miscalculation if they believe the U.S. military is incapable of responding to the murder of our soldiers in Iraq."

[jpgray]

1. Just like it succeeded in 2003! No one would dare misuse the idea of threatening for peace!

[NewJeffCT]

2. If anything

Team Bush's ineptness in Iraq can only embolden the real terrorists in Pakistan & Saudi Arabia.

[triguy46]

3. He's not demonstrating much intellect these days.

Its sad to see him struggle to get coverage, to be considered relevant. Someone tell him he's done.

Joe "Carry a big stick" Lieberman. Wow, what a scintillating, exciting, concept.:sarcasm:

[jwirr]

4. The credible threat of nukes is the damage they do when used. We

only need to convince "Iran" that a nuke strike will not only hurt us but would hurt everyone from close neighbors to the world environment. That has always been the argument against nukes and still holds.

[Canuckistanian]

5. Isn't that the rationale behind extortion?

Give me what I want, or else.....

Say, nice country you got here. A shame if anything were to happen to it.

[KharmaTrain]

6. And Whose Military Will Create That Threat, Joe??? Not Ours....

I'd love the corporate media to corner these warmongering bastards and take them at their word...and then a step further.

First...does Joe think we have the military strength to invade Iran? My bets are the Iranian intelligence of what's happening on the ground in Iraq is far better than the astroturfed stuff the CIA tip-toes past Crashcart and becomes the fantasy material Joementum spews? Does he have any idea how massive an invasion the country would be and what size force it would require? Hey, Joe...this ain't no Risk game with loaded dice. This is real life...and an invasion is all but impossible without a draft and massive increase in the number of troops...along with the training and transporting to the region.

So, air strikes you say? Yep that really will do the trick. Sure worked in getting Saddam's weapons didn't it? :sarcasm:
And this diplomacy thing, Joe? I know it will go against the goals of your AIPAC puppetmasters and expose the craven nature of this regime (which Joe now is married to) and its war for profit. Waiving the Iran boogie man ensures the instability in the region that serves the Likudniks and bushbots just fine.

I wish someone would take a real serious look at the long range affects of an attack or invasion of Iran and spell it out. If the corporate media really cares about serving the public, they'd show what perils such an attack would mean and how disastrous it would be for the United States. But sadly, my bets are they can't wait for another round of "shock and awe" and round the clock coverage with the fancy music and chance to show off all their new toys.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

7. So Joe, we will just go in and do a "little bit of bombing"?

What a turd he is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. No concept of the meaning of 'escalation'.

Not every military in the world is the lumbering elephant that we are. If we were to strike those 'terrorist training camps' in Iran with cruise missiles and air strikes, Iran would have a hundred thousand troops crossing the border within a week. And another 250K mobilizing to join them in a week after that.
When we mobilize a quick strike it takes months - long supply lines and few secure bases are just a couple of the problems. The 82nd Airborne claims they can have boots on the ground anywhere in the world within one week - but I've never seen it happen in my lifetime.
The Iranians have the manpower, short supply lines and are on their home ground. For them, moving a quarter million men to the front is just a matter of piling them into trucks and driving a couple hundred miles. With all the trouble next door, they probably have 2 or 3 divisions already at the border. Who's going to stop them?

So yeah, let's bomb those suspect camps. See what happens.

[Ishoutandscream2]

8. Fucking warmonger

Sorry for my language, but I am absolutely disgusted with Joe's pronouncements. He belongs with the neocons. Joe is no democrat.

[CGowen]

9. if that's not the definition of terrorism......

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or the perception or threat of imminent violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

[Solly Mack]

10. Did his parents ignore him as a child?

[Roland99]

11. Freedom isn't free. War is peace.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Bomb! Kill! Joe's such a liberal humanitarian.

[havocmom]

13. How do we manage any credible threats with a decimated military due to Iraq?

Joe, your warmongering ways have left the US weak and nearly defenseless. Go hype prowess on some other street corner.

Real power is not having to use it against a population that did nothing to us just to make money for a few greedy chaps. When you cave to the greedy chaps and blind agenda pushers, you are not strong, not diplomatic and not really much of a threat.