Hillary Clinton: "Iran IS seeking nuclear weapons".

[bunnies]

Like Saddam had WMDs? Or is there ANY proof behind that statement? Any proof at all? It scared the shit out of me last night to hear her make such an unequivocal assertion. Especially if, as I believe, there is no concrete proof to support it. It feels like deja vu to me... and I'm officially horrified.

I'm wondering: Did I miss something? Is this position of certainty one that Dems have adopted en mass? Hasn't anyone learned anything from Iraq??

Are we doomed? :scared: Am I just paranoid?

Disclosure: I am currently not supporting any candidate. This is not an attempt to bash Hillary. I just want to understand this statement. How's she so sure? I'm freaking out. Deja vu. That is all.

[Windy]

1. This is a legitimate concern with HRC.. don't apologize!!!

You have ever right to voice your concerns!

[bunnies]

2. Thanks Windy...

I havent seen any mention of that statement she made anywhere. I was starting to feel like the only one creeped out by it!

[MethuenProgressive]

30. Obama and Edwards agree that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

[bunnies]

33. Hey MP... maybe you know...

Does anyone have any proof? Or do they all just plan to proceed based on assumption....

[ClarkUSA]

51. Have they?

Do you have the quotes handy, by any chance? I'm curious.

[niceypoo]

85. Iran would never think of doing such a thing!

Right?
Of course they want nukes, it sure got us off of NKs back when they got nukes. It is a natural reaction to Bushes, "axis of evil," rhetoric. Whats important is the way that it is handled. It's about diplomacy.

[shain from kane]

3. Depends on what the definition of IS is. n/t

[bdamomma]

4. has she been drinking the kool aid

I did NOT like her response. Plus she voted for the Kyl/Liebermann Amendment, for some reason I am not too crazy about her. We need someone in the position of President who can restore everything this idiot * took away from us, to get in that position and run with it. I will not be dictated by the media who to vote for. No way.

[BootinUp]

5. There is no other good reason

for Iran to proceed with enriching uranium. Other countries have offered to provide whatever they need to make nuclear power. Plus Iran has a strong self interest to proceed in that direction. 1 + X = 2.

She advocated strongly for a diplomatic approach (carrots and sticks) to the problem, and refused to get into a hypothetical attack scenario in hopes of toning down the rhetoric.

[bunnies]

6. But isnt is possible that Iran doesnt want to be forced

to rely on other countries for their energy needs? Perhaps they want to be self sufficient?

[BootinUp]

7. I think its a lame attempt at diversion

When the world is essentially saying stop that shit and offering to help as well. I admit there are things we don't know (I don't know) about Iran. However, what are they hiding, why can't they make reasonable concessions. Plus they give away their intentions by their covert foreign policy with regard to Israel.

[bunnies]

8. The world?

I was under the impression that China & Russia are with Iran on this... and that they were well within their right to pursue nuclear power. :shrug:

[BootinUp]

9. Both

have supported the UN sanctions as far as I know.

[BootinUp]

10. UN sanctions

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm

Determined to give effect to its unmet 31 July demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, the Security Council today imposed sanctions on that country, blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear materiel and equipment and freezing the financial assets of persons or entities supporting its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems.

Unanimously adopting resolution 1737 (2006) under Article 41 of the Charter’s Chapter VII, the Council decided that Iran should, without further delay, suspend the following proliferation sensitive nuclear activities: all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development; and work on all heavy-water related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water. The halt to those activities would be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Specifically, the Council decided that all States should prevent the supply, sale or transfer, for the use by or benefit of Iran, of related equipment and technology, if the State determined that such items would contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy-water related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. The Council decided it would terminate the measures if Iran fully complied with its obligations, or adopt additional ones and possible further decisions if the country did not.

The Council requested a report within 60 days from the Director General of IAEA on whether Iran had established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in the resolution, as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all steps required by the IAEA Board, to the Board of Governors and the Council for its consideration. The Council affirmed that it would review Iran’s actions in light of that report and suspend implementation of measures, if and for so long as Iran suspended all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.

The Council also established a new committee, comprised of all Council members, to monitor implementation of the present text and designate further individuals or entities to which the sanctions should apply. The committee would be tasked with taking appropriate action on alleged violations of the sanctions, consider requests for exemptions, designate possible additional individuals and entities subjected to the measures, and report at least every 90 days to the Council on the implementation of the resolution. All States were to report to the Committee within 60 days on the steps they had taken with a view to implementing the relevant provisions of the resolution.

The representative of the United States stressed that adoption of the resolution sent Iran an unambiguous message that there were serious repercussions for its continuing disregard and defiance of the Security Council. He hoped the resolution would convince Iran that the best way to ensure its security and end its isolation was to end its nuclear weapons programme and take the steps outlined in today’s text, and he looked forward to Iran’s unconditional and immediate reply. The text provided an important basis for action, and it was not open to interpretation, compelling all Member States to deny Iran the equipment, technology, technical assistance and financial assistance that could contribute to nuclear sensitive activities. In the face of non-compliance by Iran, the United States would not hesitate to return to the Council for further action.

The United Kingdom’s representative recalled that, following adoption of the first such Council resolution on 31 July mandating IAEA-required suspension by Iran of its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, that country had “simply thumbed its nose at the Security Council and defied international law”. If Iran did not change course, the Council had committed itself, in today’s text, to further measures. Iran, therefore, faced a choice, and the vote today had indicated the gravity of that choice. He hoped Iran would heed the Council’s decision and return to negotiations to resolve the nuclear dossier. That, in turn, would open the way for the European Union and Iran to open a new and wider relationship to their mutual benefit, and to the benefit of international peace and security.

The main thrust of the resolution, the representative of the Russian Federation said, was support of the Council for the activities of IAEA on the issue at hand. The long and difficult consultations had focused on confirming the measures that Iran needed to take to ensure confidence in its nuclear programme, as formulated by the IAEA Board. It was crucial that the restrictions introduced by the Council applied to the areas of concern of the Agency. Cooperation with Iran in areas not restricted by the resolution should not be subjected to its terms. Some of the wording of the draft could have been made clearer. He was convinced that a solution could be found exclusively in the political and diplomatic spheres. In that context, the measures should be taken in line with Article 41 of the Charter, and not permit the use of force.

China’s representative said that sanctions were not the end, but a means to urge Iran to return to negotiations. The sanctions adopted today were limited and reversible, and targeted at proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. There were also explicit provisions indicating that, if Iran suspended its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and complied with the relevant Council texts and IAEA requirements, the Council would suspend and even terminate the sanctions. Today’s text had welcomed the commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States to a negotiated solution, and had encouraged Iran to engage with them, leading to the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and establishment of international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. Those terms of the text could spur a new round of diplomatic efforts.

[bunnies]

11. Yes...

Though I thought I had read that they would go no further. I could be wrong.

[BootinUp]

13. More recent developments

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_10/UNIranSanctions.asp

[bunnies]

18. Thanks much for the info...

I have not seen this. I'll check it out now.

[jmp]

72. What is Israel hiding?

Israel has an undeclared WMD program. Where is your outrage? Where is the support for sanctions? :eyes:

[hedgehog]

22. What kind of sticks does she have in mind? Will she stop at

economic sanctions or proceed to war?

[BootinUp]

26. There never has been a reason

to believe that she would order an invasion or attack on flimsy intelligence or for immoral reasons that I am aware of. Bad judgement with regards to Bush? Thats a much stronger case, however, I would point out that she did not have the power to stop him, and reasonable people can disagree on methods of political persuasion, calculation etc to achieve a desired goal.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. They have plenty of interest besides making nuclear weapons

Getting us to unfreeze their assets and lift other various sanctions against them is one possibility. Enriching uranium for peaceful purposes may very well be an issue of national pride for them as well and they want to be taken seriously as a world power. Iran's desire to be taken seriously was reflected when they elected Khatami in the 90's and he opened up a path to start mending relations. Instead of reaching out to Khatami we kept piling on the sanctions and placed them on the "Axis of Evil".

IMO, much of the rhetoric we hear from Iranian leaders about wiping Israel off the face of the map is akin to Bush calling for keeping marriage between a man and a woman and outlawing abortion. Both are trying to appeal to rile up their hard line supporters for political reasons. My judgment tells me that most likely Khamenei isn't really batshit crazy enough to detonate a nuclear weapon inside of Israel, especially if we offer him huge financial incentives to do otherwise.

That being said, I do think we have to take seriously the possibility that he is that crazy. However, Hillary and other Democrats aren't just acknowledging the possibility they are making it out to be a definite when there are definitely legitimate reasons to think otherwise.

At the end of the day I think this conflict would be best resolved if we'd get off our high horse and stop being so worried about acting tough.

[BootinUp]

59. I didn't catch the meaning

of your first sentence. If they fully cooperate with the UN then we can start talking about lifting sanctions. At this point they have not, although there seems to be a plan agreed to begin meeting the UN Sec Council demands that they have flaunted for nearly a year.

I am not convinced that the peaceful purposes pride thing rises to the level necessary to counter the interests of other nations that have voted for the sanctions.

I think you gravely underestimate the Iranian desire to harm Israel. Whether we are talking about using a nuke as a bomb or using it as protection to carry out other actions, it would change the balance of power even more in Irans favor at a time when they are covertly involved in terrorist activities, supplying Israels neighbors with high tech weapons etc. Also, I would disagree with your analogy, wiping people off the face of the earth is a touch harsher than your example.

I am hopeful that the UN negotiations will make more progress, I don't see Hillary or the Dems who voted for K/L as affecting that in a negative way.

As I have pointed out in other threads, K/L was more important in its domestic impact than its international impact. With 30 Dems joining to pass it, it weakens the hardliner neocon agenda.

[eridani]

71. I don't care if Iran wants to harm Israel

A country with 500+ nukes can bloody well defend its own self. If Iran lobbed a nuclear tipped missile at any location in Israel, they'd have their whole country instantly vaporized, and they are perfectly well aware of that fact.

[jmp]

83. Democrats voting for the neo-con agenda actually weakens it?

"With 30 Dems joining to pass it, it weakens the hardliner neocon agenda."

That's certainly an interesting point of view. Laughable ... but interesting.

[jmp]

46. There is no other good reason for Iran to proceed with enriching uranium.

Because it is their right to enrich uranium under the NPT?

[BootinUp]

58. I've already discussed this

in the posts above. Iran's interests aren't the only factor here.

[jmp]

73. No you haven't.

Under the NPT Iran has the right to enrich uranium for fuel. The NPT was signed by the US and all the other permanent members of the UNSC. It is Iran's right.

[Hawkowl]

12. So FUCKING what?

China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel all have nuclear weapons. The US has nuclear weapons and we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is the only country in the area without nuclear weapons. There is nothing destabilizing by a nuclear armed Iran. In fact it might be stabilizing.

I grew up in the cold war, where we woke up every day in fear of nuclear annihilation from the USSR. We prevented nuclear war by a policy of MAD: Mutually assured destruction. To save the rest of the world we formed alliances such as NATO and SEATO. Meaning attack our allies and we will nuke you. There is no reason we can't pursue such a similar tried and true policy vs. Iran. We should have done it with Iraq.

Except it doesn't have to be MAD. It would be simply YAD: You're Assured Destruction, because there is no way for Iran to destroy the US and our allies.

Attacking Iran to prevent war is the same as burning your house down to prevent flood damage. For this reason alone, Hilary can go fuck herself.

[BootinUp]

14. I don't think that is a reasonable position

If Iran was a "good state" and more transparent and we could be confident the nukes wouldn't get into radical elements hands then I would be more open to your argument.

Lastly, your rant against Hillary is simply unfounded.

[Windy]

17. Hmmm...jim for wes.. what about Pakistan? An unstable government with NUKES

and with AlQ working unrestrained in the border areas and launching devastating terrorist attacks with regularity... I believe that Pakistan is much more of a concern than Iran.

The entire Iran is a grave threat is a ruse in order to begin another war for oil and for opportunistic contractors.

By the way...Isreal also refuses to sign the NPT.. Any thoughts on that?

And to Hillary supporters, any legitimate concern or disagreement with a policy of Hillary is unfounded. This inability to speak freely about the issues is troubling.

[BootinUp]

19. Why does one fucked up situation deserve to be compounded

with another? What kind of logic applies there?

As for Israel, I am all in favor of pressuring them to improve their actions as long as it doesn't seriously threaten their security.

On Hillary, the charge that she is a war mongerer (implied by the above poster) is ludicrous beyond words, and anyone who falls for it probably also believes 9/11 was an inside job. These people should be ridiculed for not studying facts more carefully before shooting off their mouths.

[Hawkowl]

21. Nonsense

I in no way beleive 911 was an inside job--considering I was captaining an airliner on that date. What I believe is that HRC is a corporate whore (no-sexism implied). Meaning that she is beholden to GE, defense contractors, Rupert Murdoch, and George Bush senior vis a vis her husband. War is good for business and she lacks the moral clarity to stand up against her corporate masters. She wishes to obtain power for mere power's sake--the argument of megalomaniacs.

You sir, by you're vapid personal insults, can not change the fact of who Hilary is.

[BootinUp]

23. facts are fleeting things on the nets

and insults are better avoided, granted.


Your assertion that she believes war is good for business is again not backed up by any real facts. Its no better than a six degrees of separation guilt by association bullshit construction. You might consider that argument a bit.

[Moochy]

89. Spoken like a true hillbot

"Facts are fleeting things"

[Windy]

25. The point is, there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is a threat

to the national security of the US or Isreal. The threat lies elsewhere.

[BootinUp]

28. Where do you get this idea from? n/t

[jmp]

75. From the lack of evidence that Iran is a threat.

Same as with Iraq.

[jmp]

74. "As for Israel ..."

"As for Israel, I am all in favor of pressuring them to improve their actions as long as it doesn't seriously threaten their security.

Why the interest in the security of a country that forces millions to live in exile in order to preserve its status as a "Jewish" nation?

Is that your idea of western values? :eyes:

[BootinUp]

102. You aren't really interested

in discussing this, I can tell from the way you answered all my posts that you refuse to acknowledge any of my points.

[Hawkowl]

20. Easily traceable

We simply inform Iran that if any nukes find their way into the hands of Hezbollah or other Islamic radicals, that they will be held responsible, and can look forward to the vaporization of their country. Containment and promises of retaliation are a proven strategy. I think you are laboring under the assumption that the mullahs that run Iran are irrational fanatics. Not so at all. They are crazy like foxes and subtle strategists. Certainly not unique and similar to both the Chinese and the former USSR.

If we attack first, unprovoked, we guarantee retaliation, perhaps of the nuclear kind. Not to mention we are setting ourselves up as the 21st century Nazi's, with torture, secret concentration camps, and attacking first. The consequences for the US will be virtually irreparable. We are on the verge of uniting the entire world--against us.

As to your opinion about mine about Hilary-- you may believe what you will. It is still a semi-free country.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. IMO, the mullahs may be rational or irrational

I agree with a lot of what you have posted because I think that the mainstream argument seems to be that the Mullahs are irrational.

My better judgment tells me that the mullahs are rational, but I have to leave open the possibility that they are not. IMO, we should seriously consider letting them enrich uranium for energy purposes but if at all possible avoid them getting nuclear weapons.

[NOLALady]

31. Are we confident that our nukes

aren't falling into the hands of radical elements? "Good state" like US?

[BootinUp]

34. You don't think

the US knows where its nukes are?


A "Good State" imho is one that makes efforts to get along with its neighbors in the world to avoid military conflict even while pursuing its own interests.

It probably is not a theocracy, certainly not one lead by a religious leader that issues fatwahs against book writers and comic strip artists.

It probably does not actively support terrorist bombings in civilian and presumably peaceful areas with weapons and training and logistics.

It does not generally advocate the elimination altogether of a nation for no other reason than 1000 year old spurious religious claims to territory that was ungoverned at the time the nation was established by a world body and with arguably the better counterclaim to the area.

It will be a reasonably open society with much tourism and trade with many countries, and therefore have shared interests with its neighbors.

It will lead efforts at diplomacy when possible in preference to military action.

It will reject race or ethnicity based hatred.

Your turn.

[eridani]

61. Point by point

A "Good State" imho is one that makes efforts to get along with its neighbors in the world to avoid military conflict even while pursuing its own interests.

That would make the US a bad state. A country with 700+ military bases around the world is not interested in defense, it is interested purely in domination.

It probably is not a theocracy, certainly not one lead by a religious leader that issues fatwahs against book writers and comic strip artists.

The Bush support base is every bit as whacky as the support base of the Iranian fundies. They have less power here because we still have a longstanding countervailing secular tradition. Iran doesn't, and every US threat against Iran empowers the fundies against the secularists.

It probably does not actively support terrorist bombings in civilian and presumably peaceful areas with weapons and training and logistics.

The US is by far the world's largest supporter of terrorist bombing. The School of the Americas exists for the sole purpose of training terrorists. We funded terrorist attacks on most Central American countries, and back military overthrow of quite a few civilian regimes in Latin America. We are currently funding the MEK terrorist attacks on Iran.

It does not generally advocate the elimination altogether of a nation for no other reason than 1000 year old spurious religious claims to territory that was ungoverned at the time the nation was established by a world body and with arguably the better counterclaim to the area.

We eliminated the most of the native population of North America for the claim of Manifest Destiny.

It will be a reasonably open society with much tourism and trade with many countries, and therefore have shared interests with its neighbors.

So, why is travel to Cuba banned here?

It will lead efforts at diplomacy when possible in preference to military action.

You mean like the invasion of Iraq, which used to have no connection with Al Qaeda, and no military capacity to threaten anybody?

It will reject race or ethnicity based hatred.

We're actually pretty good at this one, at least officially, and have made marked progress over the las 100 years. Unofficially, people are rounded up and detained without trial based purely on their ethnicity. Unofficially, google "noose" + "Jena".


Your turn.

[BootinUp]

64. This will be a shorter reply probably

While you have pointed out flaws, bad situations, etc with America, there are internal mechanisms that correct or are correcting these most egregious errors. I differ with your take on the SOA, as I believe it has a useful function that I will not bother to try and convince you of at this time. I also do not generally fall for the foreign military base argument that we are another Roman Empire. Clearly those bases are not used to forcibly enslave populations.

Hope that was an interesting trading of ideas for you.

[eridani]

70. It's true--we have made progress over the years in moving towards our stated ideals

Nonetheless, I think that the military enforcement of corporate economic domination is nothing but a modern form of slavery. Chattel slavery is certainly not the only form of oppresive domination. What in fucking hell are 700+ military bases for, anyway?

IF SOA is so useful, why don't we have Hugo Chavez open up a training school for US police? We could send those Gretna, LA assholes over there as its first students, and then those NY cops who flashlight rape suspects of color.

[Heywood J]

99. "While you have pointed out flaws, bad situations, etc with America, there are internal mechanisms

that correct or are correcting these most egregious errors."

I wish. There appear to be more powerful mechanisms designed to perpetuate and generate such egregious errors.

[jmp]

78. "You don't think the US knows where its nukes are?"

Did you sleep through the recent B-52 incident? :eyes:

[jmp]

79. Do "good states" have clandestine nuclear weapons programs?

Do "good states" celebrate terrorist attacks?

Do "good states" cluster bomb civilian areas?

Do "good states" keep millions in exile due to their religion?

Your turn.

[eridani]

32. That's crap

You're worried about nukes getting into the hands of radicals? Worry about fundies overthrowing Musharraf in Pakistan. Not to mentions Russia's seriously lousy command and control system.

[BootinUp]

35. another poor attempt to justify ignoring a very serious issue.

Don't look at that!


Look over here!! HERE! HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about we use our brains to deal with all of these concerns in a rational considered manner.

[eridani]

62. But it isn't a serious issue

The only "serious issue" is the fact that Iran has a fairly large population and is currently not under the military thumb of the US. While it's never good to have more nations with nuclear weapons, it would be fairly trivial if Iran went nuclear, at least compared to the fact that most of the countries surrounding it (Israel, Russian, China, India and Pakistan) are already nuclear.

[BootinUp]

65. post #59 (edited)

addresses this.

[jmp]

47. Which are the "good states"?

...

[BootinUp]

57. post #31

[jmp]

81. #31 doesn't answer the question. I want the names of these "good states".

...

[bunnies]

16. Myself,

I think Iran has the same right to have nukes as everybody else does. And I sure as hell wouldnt blame them for wanting them. Its the reliance on an unproven claim to launch another preemptive war that scares me. I think we're in agreement on the issue.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP!!!!

THANK YOU!

I am so tired of seeing people here or anywhere declare what countries should or should not have nuclear weapons.

[OwnedByFerrets]

36. Right on Hawk....Im with ya on this....nt

[Carolina]

77. Exactly

[Strelnikov_]

84. Further, what use could a small stockpile of nukes be to Iran?

The Iranian leadership states that nuclear weapons are of no use and are contrary to Islam. Sounds high minded, but I find myself thinking they are seeking them anyway, as a deterrent.

Thing is, what good would they do against a nuclear power?

To deter an invasion? To strike Israel? To give to terrorists? As you said, YAD.

A nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran would only be useful against a regional non-nuclear state. They could, as the Iran war hawks bleat, 'threaten their neighbors'. Thing is, all those neighbors are under the protection of the US Petroleum Security Service (aka the US military). Again, YAD.

So, I reach the conclusion that they are not seeking an active weapons program (ability to produce multiple devices) in the near term (generation). They are building the base infrastructure, doing the basic research (Chimps 'knowledge' the other day), so in a generation or two, they will have the capability if needed to deter other regional powers.

They are playing the game over generations, not in two year election cycles like us. They also know that in another generation, US control over the region will be waining, either because we are bankrupt, or because we have lost interest in maintaining hegemony over a resource in decline.

[AX10]

15. Iran is looking for develop nuclear weapons.

Also, we have alot of time to deal with Iran WITHOUT the use of ANY MILITARY ACTION WHATSOEVER!

[sniffa]

24. she's the goddess of peace

vote for her, and we get what we deserve.

[bunnies]

37. holy crap. I almost spit my drink out all over my desk.

Thought you were serious... then saw your avatar. Whew! :hi:

[Tektonik]

27. Clinton will lead us to war

Thank god so many lemmings support her. Thank fucking god.

[moondust]

40. That's what Valerie Plame says.

[ShortnFiery]

50. Gee, I think Val has been thrown out of the loop the past 3 years by Darth Cheney and Associates.

:shrug:

[moondust]

56. And I'm sure Iran's long-term goals change every 2 years.

:eyes:

[superkia]

41. I noticed she pointed out that they were seeking nuclear weapons...

also. I have yet to see anything about evidence pointing that way, only propaganda out of the Bush camp and we know if they had the evidence it would be all over the MSM. She reminded me of how she sounded back in 2002 as she spewed Bush's propaganda about Iraq, Saddam and Al queida. Once again, a vote for Clinton is a vote for war and I am totally against all of these wars.

[cuke]

42. Our European allies agree that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons

I guess they are all in on the propoganda

[superkia]

43. Yes, you should do some research into them as well.

Or do you think its only America that is run by who has the money and power? There are plenty of sources out there but if Americans are unwilling to make an effort to educate themselves, we deserve what we are doing to our country and what we are doing to the countries that are unwilling to go along. Our country is in its sad shape because we are lazy as a people and refuse to search out and educate ourselves, its sad and shameful because people once died for our freedoms and we wont even sit at a computer or read some good literature to defend our freedoms now.

[cuke]

44. Gotcha

Everyone is in league with bush*. It's the all purpose excuse; No facts needed

[superkia]

45. Educate yourself a little before you make a bad vote for my...

children's future.

That is all, enjoy the rest of your evening.

[bunnies]

90. "no facts needed"

Kind of ironic. Dont you think?

[ShortnFiery]

48. Here we go again, same old LIES and B.S. Propaganda.

:thumbsdown: Yet, with a little fear-mongering us *sheeple* just lap it up. :(

[NastyRiffraff]

49. Bush's wish for war in Iran is NOT about nuclear weapons

Never has been. His neocon advisors know very well the difference between "nuclear weapons" and building nuclear capabilities, which could mean almost anything. The nuclear weapons thing is just a scary excuse.

And "seeking nuclear weapons" and actually building and having the capability to use them are worlds apart. Yes, it can be dangerous, which is exactly why intelligence and diplomacy are called for, not Bush's usual sabre-rattling.

[ShortnFiery]

52. And don't kid yourself if you think our illustrious Neo-Liberals believe any differently than ...

the Neo-Conservatives with regard for the blood-lust $$$ perpetual war for empire and lotsa that lovely cheap labor and oodles of free trade. :(

[obamian]

53. There is evidence that Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons

With it's defiance of the IAEA, Iran has given the U.S. reason to believe they are developing nuclear weapons. Until they increase the transparency of their nuclear activities, the U.S. can only assume that they are moving towards nuclear weapons.

How the U.S. should respond is completely separate issue...

From the latest IAEA report:

The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has been
providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear
material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities. However, the
Agency remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear
programme. It should be noted that since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of
information that Iran had previously been providing, including pursuant to the Additional Protocol, for
example information relevant to ongoing advanced centrifuge research.
23. The work plan is a significant step forward. If Iran finally addresses the long outstanding
verification issues, the Agency should be in a position to reconstruct the history of Iran’s nuclear
programme. Naturally, the key to successful implementation of the agreed work plan is Iran’s full and
active cooperation with the Agency, and its provision to the Agency of all relevant information and
access to all relevant documentation and individuals to enable the Agency to resolve all outstanding
issues. To this end, the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein
and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures
provided for in the Additional Protocol.
24. Once Iran’s past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to build
confidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme. Confidence in the
exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide
assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally important, regarding the absence
of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, through the implementation of the Additional
Protocol. The Director General therefore again urges Iran to ratify and bring into force the Additional
Protocol at the earliest possible date, as requested by the Board of Governors and the Security Council.
25. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related
activities, having continued with the operation of PFEP, and with the construction and operation of
FEP. Iran is also continuing with its construction of the IR-40 reactor and operation of the Heavy
Water Production Plant.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-48.pdf

[bunnies]

88. "reason to believe" is not proof however...

which is what I was asking for.

[dugggy]

54. Yes! Saddam actually USED wmd's on his own people

there is incontrovertible evidence!! People dead with poison gas with
their skins burned and peeled off. Yes, there are photographs, witnesses,
even dead bodies.

Saddam also had a working nuclear reactor facility which was bombed out of
existence by Israel.

Did Saddam have wmd's when Bush attacked? No one knows for sure. May be he
did not. Or, may be he hid them. Iraq is bigger than California and we can't
even find the 4 or 5 million illegals living in California. Iraq has a huge
desert with no roads for miles and miles. You will need an army of 10 million
soldiers scouring the desert for months to find anything. Regardless of the
wmd issue, Bush blundered by attacking Iraq and spending Trillion dollars and
thousands killed for naught. It was both premature and ill-conceived.

What is wrong with Hillary keeping ALL OPTIONS on the table, including the
military option with Iran? If she becomes the president, I will not lose sleep
worrying about her attacking Iran without incontrovertible evidence of Nukes
being present in Iran. Hillary is not Bush!

[illinoisprogressive]

55. she would rule through fear. Hillary Cheney Clinton.

[BootinUp]

60. I guess you missed the part of the debate

where she refused to discuss hypotheticals for attacking Iran. It was a clear effort to lower the fear rhetoric.

[Odin2005]

63. Of course Iran wants nukes.

I would too if my country got called a part of an "axis of evil" and my neighbor, another part the the "axis of evil" just got invaded. So it's pretty obvious why Iran wants nukes.

Anyway, I don't want a bunch of theocrats with nukes. If want to call me a warmonger for saying that go right ahead.

[dugggy]

66. So Iran really thinks it has a viable defense against the 10,000 US nukes

and 10,000 ICBM's? How will Iran using a nuke will save Iran
from turning into a sand pit? Please explain.

[BootinUp]

67. A nuke does not have to be

detonated to be an effective projection of power. How many nukes do you think it takes to create a nuclear holocaust. Is a holocaust when a large city is vaporized or maybe 2 or 3? Further, I do not think its cut and dried that America would nuke a country in a retaliatory strike and thereby kill hundreds of thousands of presumably innocent civilians. It would depend on whether that was the only way to neutralize the threat.

Do we really want Iran to have more freedom to export terror against Israel than they do know. Not to mention further increasing their influence over Iraq.

So you might want to think this over some more.

[ClarkUSA]

68. I'm not taking anybody's word on it.

I'm sure most of the world would like to see irrefutable proof this time. I know I would.


So far, I haven't seen any.

[rAVES]

69. Basically accepting Shitlers propaganda so they can maintain more of the same in the future

without standing out as a hypocrite (well not in the MSM)

[Carolina]

76. this is but only

one of the troubling things about Hillary.

The weapons issue, however, begs another question. If Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, can you blame them? The world sees what happened to Iraq which had NO WMDs.

By contrast, Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, Israel has nikes, N. Korea has nukes, Russia has nukes...

Lesson learned. The best defense is a strong offense!

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. Yes that lesson has been learned, which is why Hillary is probably right.

So why is that troubling about Hillary? If it is logical for Iran to now want nukes, and if all agree that Iran is investing huge amounts of time and resourses into developing dual purpose nuclear technology, why are you troubled by Hillary concluding that Iran is doing what you have just argued is the logical thing for Iran to be doing?

[Carolina]

86. because it's duplicitous

to single out Iran selectively for such 'evil'

because instead of calling out Bush and Cheney on the ridiculousness of their latest propaganda campaign against Iran, she's going along AGAIN!!!!

because it's the same duplicitous pre-emptive war, saber-rattling, deja vu bullshit

because Hillary is such a duplicitous, war-mongering, corporate (military-industrial complex) tool

because like Rome, our leaders --including dems like HRC-- are trying to conquer the world while the US crumbles from within, literally and figuratively

because as long as the same leaders consume sooooooo much of our treasury and manpower on foreign soil, we can never address issues at home; there's nothing left

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. She may be at the top of your list

but it could be called duplicitous to single out Clinton for saying she thinks Iran wants nukes when almost all of our candidates think the same and you yourself present the logic for why Iran should want nukes.

[Carolina]

91. I am singling out HRC

because this thread is specifically about her remark. Moreover she is the only one who voted 'aye' on K-L.

But I am not duplicitous in singling her out because actually, I don't have a candidate; I currently support NO ONE for the very reason you cite. In fact, I don't like HRC, Biden, Dodd or Edwards because of their complicity with Bush through their IWR votes. And Obama, Richardson and Kucinich are not electable for assorted reasons.

Quite frankly, the heated Iran rhetoric is a distraction put forth by BushCo and the media. Iraq was not a threat and neither is Iran. That's what our so-called 'leaders' should be saying. Instead they once again add credibility to the BushCo/embedded media talking point.

If Iran is seeking WMDs, it's just common sense. Our 'leading' candidates and the US cannot dictate that one nation cannot have weapons that so many of its neighbors and others have. So instead of threats, we should be opening up dialogue and more diplomacy. Threats of UN sanctions and potential military action, etc. is not diplomacy. Funny that Russia and China get that point.

Actually, you and I are not so much at odds. I'm against war and against ALL aiding and abetting warmongers even those with D beside their names.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. A good reply. Thanks. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

82. Mohamed elBaradei told Charlie Rose,"Everybody agrees that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon."

So, it seems as if Hillary is lowering the bar, just like Bush has done, if she is saying, "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons"--altho Bush has recently lowered the bar even further by saying that Iran having the knowledge to build a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. He's much further along here than he was with Iraq, into "Beserkistan."

Charlie Rose interviewed Mohamed elBaradei on Tuesday night, 10/31. There is a segment from the show at the link below.

Baradei says he hopes Iran will take a time out, and that "both sides will take a risk for peace." He spoke of the major distrust on both sides going back to 1953 with the CIA overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq. Baradei said it will take gradual confidence building through negotiation. (And, of course, Condi's "precondition" for negotiations is that Iran stop enrichment and then, we will negotiate.)

http://www.charlierose.com/home

[Basileus Basileon]

92. What?

HRC: "Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. We should use tough diplomacy--but avoid war--to prevent that from happening."
You: "Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon yet! Hillary lowering the bar!"

[bunnies]

94. Is that a real HRC quote? Just curious. n/t

[Basileus Basileon]

97. No, a condensation of several quotes.

If you believe any of that is at odds with her stated positions re: Iran, I can provide more specifics.

[bunnies]

100. Thanks for the clarification. No further info needed.

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

93. Your concern is valid and shared.

I simply cannot support any candidate who voted for war and more war, nor for anyone that embraces secrecy and couldn't give a straight answer with a gun to their head.

I have had enough of politics as usual.

[Joe Chi Minh]

96. Can anyone please explain to me why, other than for defensive purposes, Iran

would want to use nuclear weapons - even to the extent that Bush and Cheney appear to - which we know is absolutely minimal?

Does Iran have a record of attacking other countries - apart from the war against Iraq (fomented and supported by the US, with Iraq being aided and materially supported by the CIA, State Department and the rest of the US military-industrial complex)? Or is it remotely possible that the Iranians are nutjobs, mavericks, who only want to use them for defensive puproses. That kind of crazy, rogue behaviour can blind-side the innocent, take them unawares.

No wonder the Iranians are viewed by our countries as a continuing threat! Moving the goal-posts like that is unforgivable.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

98. They want them because...

He Who Has Nukes becomes a world "player" -- they have no intention of using them. Look at Pakistan and India. Honestly, who gave a rat's ass about those countries until they developed their nukes? Now that they have The Big One, they are at the Big Boys table at every world happening. That is why North Korea wants them, same thing, clout.

[Joe Chi Minh]

101. Well, it seems there's no accounting for what rings people's chimes.

Would you want to sit at any table, physical or metaphorical, with such types?