Hillary, War with Iran is No Laughing Matter

[IndianaGreen]

Hillary, War with Iran is No Laughing Matter

by Sen. Mike Gravel

Hillary, I'm glad to see you got a good laugh when I confronted you during last week's debate over your vote calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) a terrorist organization. The American public finally got to see your cavalier attitude toward our march to war. Your vote however is no laughing matter.

By labeling the IRG a terrorist organization, the Democratic-controlled congress has impeded our ability to negotiate with a huge portion of the Iranian government. The IRG is a 125,000-person organization with ties to every power base in Iran. The IRG is also admired by a vast potion of the Iranian people for its heroic stand against Saddam Hussein's invasion during the Iran-Iraq War. Mohammad Khatami, the former reformist president of Iran, warned the United States not to label the IRG a terrorist organization because doing so would preclude any diplomatic settlement of our differences.

While I'm sure your vote plays well with the hawks and military contractors who support your campaign, it is the height of irresponsibility. Like with Iraq in 2002, elements in our government have already decided to attack Iran and are now trying to "sell it." Last week, Congress gave the warmongers a big gift. (Note to Congressional Dems: You were elected to stop a war, not start a new one!)

Hillary, war with Iran will have devastating consequences for all Americans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-mike-gravel/hillary-war-with-iran-is_b_66505.html

[wyldwolf]

1. ..but Mike Gravel is

[truebrit71]

4. Right?

...HRC is a bought-and-paid for corporate shill....

...She likes her wars too apparently...

[leftchick]

7. not bought and paid for by

AIPAC/DLC/Corporate MIC? Like her highness Hil? You betcha!

[frylock]

11. speaking the truth.

[EVDebs]

2. She already knows that * under the Sept '01 AUMF can start Iran war

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3587801&mesg_id=3588138

That's why she was laughing, that horse has already left the barn.

[Froward69]

3. I think she will take us there

peace votes wasted.

[paparush]

10. And hurts Quarterly Profits.

[Deja Q]

5. All 300 mil of us, All 262 mil of us as 38 mil are illegals, or only 299,999,000 as

Only 1000 Americans wouldn't be affected because of their wealth?

And would countries supporting Iran be so happy either?

Or the other way around? Would you trust Iran with the capacity to exterminate us?

Maybe I need to read more into the situation, but from past observation, Hillary is right and Iran has proven itself to be less than trustworthy, and needs to do a lot to earn international trust...

:hide:

[roguevalley]

6. okay. * will use nukes in Iran and all the experts said the projects

that are nuclear won't be dented by that. However, THE MANY NEIGHBORHOODS FULL OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND THEM will be as will all the rest of us from down wind wind clouds. There are estimates that 34 MILLION people will die from this fucked up fantasy of his. Fuck that. Fuck anyone who thinks that's acceptable. Get the Vanity Fair on *. It will scare you to death.

[EVDebs]

8. Mutual assured destruction if Israel and Iran both have nukes

This may end up becoming a sanity test for all those in the Middle East. In the meantime the US's policy tends toward securing OIL for the US consumer/economy/military; with a conflagration in the ME, you end up with a self-destructive policy.

We need to implement Amory Lovin's Oil End Game policies
http://www.oilendgame.com

"By following this roadmap, the U.S. would set the stage by 2025 for the checkmate move in the Oil Endgame—the optional but advantageous transition to a hydrogen economy and the complete and permanent displacement of oil as a direct fuel. Oil may, however, retain or even gain value as one of the competing sources of hydrogen"

Conservation and alternatives NOW. In five years, should Iran aquire a nuke on their own, without stealing or otherwise obtaining one not on their own, you'd think they'd want to pursue peaceful atomic energy, having -- like Libya, N. Korea, and S. Africa-- squandered so many resources in obtaining something that is only destructive and in the end useless.

If the US can handle Pakistan with a nuke we can handle Iran with a nuke also. Iran would do well to remember that Jews have a saying: "Never Again". With holocaust deniers in power they are the ones with more to fear than Israel.

[truedelphi]

21. Well the person that I admire the most, that is, Sen Jim Webb of VA

Pointed out in his rebuttal to *'s State of the Union address that
1) while Iran might be guilty of supplying armanents to Iraq
just as China was guilty during Vietnam era of supplying armanents to
the North Vietnamese
and 2) that during the Vietname era, China was developping its nuclear
program at a record pace (unlike Iran - which could not even have a
nuke until 72 months from now)

The sensible policy under Nixon/Kissinger was to leave China alone.

If China could behave the way it did without us setting the stage for a nuclear war,
and WWIII, why shouldn't America not utilize the same policy today against Iran?
Oh I know -- just have Bush or H. Clinton say "Boogeyman under the bed with nukes!"
and most Americans will fall in line for war.

Do you really wanna risk living in a fallout shelter?? To take out a country's nuclear program that
does not even EXIST right now?


(The major thermonuclear war might not come upon us immediately but some three or
four years down the road as China and Russia build an alliance against us)

[jillan]

9. God bless Mike Gravel for keeping them honest.

I hope he stays in this race until the primaries.

[CrispyQ]

12. "We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war."

She lost my vote with that statement.

[IndianaGreen]

13. How quickly people forget how we were suckered into a war with Iraq

particularly now when we see the pro-Iran war crowd using the same script that was used against Iraq. Unable to frighten people with talk of an Iranian atom bomb, they are now relying on ass-kissing pukes like Gen. Petraeus to lay the foundation on an Iran war by saying that our troops are being threatened by an Iranian militia. Give me a break!

[Emillereid]

14. Yeah - what's with her laughter lately -- it always seems mistimed and

inappropriate. Is it a sign of nervousness? Is she buying time? What? I don't remember her laughing so inexplicably before.

[Rhythm and Blue]

15. No, Mike, but your claim that the amendment amounted to war is. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

16. So like Hillary, you trust Bush again?

If there is any lesson to be learned from nearly 7 years of Bush, is that the man can't be trusted with anything.

Bush will use Lieberman's Iran road-to-war resolution to bomb Iran under the pretext that he is protecting US troops in Iran.

Bush will get away with it because he knows that Pelosi won't impeach him no matter what he does!

[Rhythm and Blue]

17. No, like Hillary I understand that the actual real-life wording of amendments

is actually more important than what a crank on the internet thinks it might mean.

This amendment gives no power to Bush whatsoever. It offers no pretext that is not already accepted by everyone. It's a big nothin' deal.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Millions of people knew Bush was lying about WMD in Iraq, yet "cranks" in Congress voted for IWR

And when Bush bombs Iran under the pretext of protecting his armies in Iraq, Hillary will be among those that won't criticize Bush for having done so.

If this amendment is as meaningless as you claimed it is, why did Hillary bothered to vote for it? Why did she vote for something the traitor Joe Lieberman proposed? Why is she still trusting Bush with anything?

[Rhythm and Blue]

20. Hillary voted for it because

it was up for a vote, and she knew that a meaningless "yes" vote would let her claim to be "tough on foreign policy" while avoiding there actually being any consequences for that vote, as the amendment grants no powers to anyone.

Every day, literally dozens of symbolic resolutions are passed. The day the Lieberman-Kyl amendment was passed, Congress also voted to rename a dozen post offices, declare a National Life Insurance Month, condemn Burma, etc., etc. Look through the Congressional Record; days in which nothing pointless is passed are very rare.

(Let's try to keep criticism limited to things she has actually done, not things that fevered minds think she might someday do)

[calteacherguy]

18. You vastly overestimate the power of the Congress.

They only said "should" be declared a terrorist organization, so that economic pressure can be applied. They have no power to do so.