Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Other Than Kucinich - Have Other Dem Candidates Taken A Stand On The Potential of * Attacking Iran?.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 09:41 AM
Original message
Other Than Kucinich - Have Other Dem Candidates Taken A Stand On The Potential of * Attacking Iran?.
The implications of such an action by *Co on the U.S. and the world is frightening. But I can't recall any statements being made by Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, etc, etc, etc - coming out against *Co for even threatening to attack Iran.

Is this a foregone conclusion. Are they 'ok' with such an attack?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well, Gravel has taken them to task over it in the debates
"These people scare me!" No kidding :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes - the death and destruction of Iraq and the death and destruction
Edited on Tue Sep-04-07 09:58 AM by higher class
of Iran (if it takes place) is clearly on the hands of some of them. How do they allow it? How can they allow it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. So Bottom Line Is If *Co Decides To Attack Iran - He Would Essentially.....
have the tacit consent of the Dems - kinda just like when he decided to go into Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerRepub Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Attack on Iran
This is extremely worrisome...I agree. It is encouraging that the Russians (as far as I know) aren't on the verge of calling an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council which they did threaten to do when their intelligence sources indicated that we were planning an April air attack on Iran. I couldn't imagine our current Congress giving the Bush Administration another blank check to attack ANYONE at this point, can you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. yes - Hillary warned the iranians
to stop funding insurgents and to stop arming them.

She blamed "much" of the violence in Baghdad on the Iranians, again swallowing whole the WH kool aid.

ignoring betrayus' stupid efforts in 2003 which led to the loss of a hundred thousand US weapons to the insurgents.
ignoring Rumsfeld's stupid ideas to leave mountains of ammo dumps and arms depots unguarded.
ignoring Bush's and Bremer's decision to disband the army.

so, in context, she would support an attack on Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
4. Obama supports the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007
Edited on Tue Sep-04-07 10:06 AM by zulchzulu
The House passed their version:

H.R. 2347: Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007

Sponsor:
Rep. Barney Frank

A bill to authorize State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector, companies that sell arms to the Government of Iran, and financial institutions that extend $20,000,000 or more in credit to the Government of Iran for 45 days or more, and for other purposes.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2347


Barack Obama is sponsor of the Senate version: S. 1430: Iran Sanctions Enabling Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1430

Co-sponsors I respect:
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

His speech introduction:

IRAN DIVESTMENT -- (Senate - July 26, 2007)

Sen. Barack Obama : Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate an important article that appeared in today's Baltimore Sun. It describes the progress States are making in passing laws that divest their pension funds of companies that invest heavily in Iran's oil and gas industry. As highlighted in the article, Florida enacted a significant law along these lines, and other States, including my State of Illinois, are on the verge of doing so.

The need for these laws is clear. Iran uses the revenue it generates from its energy sector to finance its pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Along with a sustained diplomatic effort and toughened multilateral sanctions on Iran, divestment is a useful tool that State and local governments can use to increase economic pressure to persuade Iran to end its dangerous policies.

But, as the article points out, past Supreme Court decisions have called into question whether States have the constitutional authority to pass such laws. For that reason, Congress needs to pass the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, S. 1430, which I introduced in May. This bill would clarify that States have the authority to pass divestment legislation with respect to Iran, and it would provide information from the Federal Government to make it easier for them to do so. I am proud that 14 of my colleagues have cosponsored this bill so far, but Iran's seemingly unbridled drive for nuclear weapons makes this a matter of considerable urgency. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in working to pass this legislation without delay.

I ask unanimous consent that the article in today's Baltimore Sun be printed in the Record.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s2007...







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obnoxiousdrunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. How does this
stop * attacking Iran ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Obama also talks about missile strikes
"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-040...

The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OB...

And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/02/aipac_policy_foru...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. Joe Biden
and I am very grateful to the small group of Biden supporters for posting the YouTube of Biden ripping apart those that say that Iran is a threat to anyone.

BTW, I am a Kucinich supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Now I am impressed - you beat me to it :)


Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LISgWet3eU

Biden telling it like it is. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yep, that's the video!
Thanks for posting it again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. Richardson wrote an Editorial on Iran in Feb followed by a policy speech in June.
Here's some excerpts from his Washington Post editorial:

Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations.

A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks.

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they dont. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership.

Diplomacy is more than just talking to people. It requires speaking credibly from a position of strength. As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as energy secretary, as a member of Congress and as a diplomatic envoy, I have always believed in and worked to achieve tough, credible and direct negotiations with adversaries. To be tough, you need strong alliances and a strong military. And to be credible, you need a record of meaning what you say. By alienating our allies, overextending our military, making idle threats and antagonizing just about everyone, the Bush administration has undermined our diplomatic leverage.


He then detailed on how he would negotiate with them in June. He denounces the call for war against Iran and calls for peace talks with no preconditions. I was very impressed that he acknowledged the US errors in overthrowing their government, supporting the Shah, and supporting Saddam in the war against them. Few politicians would be that honest in giving a policy speech.


But I also believe that peace comes to those who have the courage to learn from their own errors. We should recognize that US support for the Shah's repressive regime, and then for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s -- and the US government's silence when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran -- were wrong. These and other mistakes on our part -- like the many mistakes Iranians have made -- have left wounds that are still deeply felt in both societies. Both we and the Iranians need to acknowledge this difficult shared history, and work to get beyond it.
...
Our message to Iran must always have two components:

1. We must respect their legitimate right to peaceful nuclear energy, and we must let them know that gestures toward peace and reconciliation will be reciprocated with meaningful economic benefits and security guarantees;
2. We must stand absolutely firm with our international partners in letting the Iranians know that we will never allow them to acquire nuclear weapons, and that they will pay a high price if they continue to support international terrorists.
...
Most experts believe that Iran is still several years away from being capable of building nuclear weapons. We should use that time constructively to build peace, rather than rushing toward another catastrophic war.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Thanks for posting this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-04-07 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hearing Obama and HRC on the news shows, they both seem very hawkish to me when it comes to Iran.
NOT GOOD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC