G.I. Joe

[Nbadan]

Once a NeoCon, always a NeoCon...


WASHINGTON - Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Sunday the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's involvement in Iraq.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

...

Lieberman said much of the action could probably be done by air, although he would leave the strategy to the generals in charge. "I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran," Lieberman said.

"They can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," he said. "We cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."

Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iran ;_ylt=Agozk5smyCOMRQ1j4RsVL2ZSw60A)

Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) writes:

How in the world can a developing country with about a fourth of the population of the US, about a $2000 per capita income (in real terms, not local purchasing power), with no intercontinental ballistic missiles, with no weapons of mass destruction (and no proof positive it is trying to get them), with a small army and a small military budget-- how is such a country a "threat" to the United States of America?

Iranian leaders don't like the US, and they talk dirty about the US, and they do attempt to thwart US interests. The same is true of Venezuela under Chavez. But Tehran is a minor player on the world stage, and trying to build it up to replace the Soviet Union is just the worst sort of fear-mongering, and it is being done on behalf of the US military industrial complex, which wants to do to Iran what it did to Iraq. It is propaganda, and significant numbers of Americans (a 7 percent increase (in recent polls) would be like 21 million people!) are buying it.

[xrayzebra]

Dan, if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.
I swear, you can post more crap than the law allows.

[xrayzebra]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/jihad.gif

[xrayzebra]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/Iranhelping.gif

[Extra Stout]

Lieberman, of course, is being circumspect. Invading Iran in order to stop their incursion into Iraq is silly and unnecessary, and the U.S. has already taken effective steps to limit their reach into Iraq.

The issue at hand is Iran's nuclear program. And, it is not so much that Iran's nukes would threaten the U.S., or even Israel, at least not directly. The threat is the Arab response to a nuclear Iran. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, at a minimum, both would want to go nuclear in order to compete with Iran, and once that happens, nuclear proliferation will be out of control in the Middle East.

The neoconservative hawks think that attacking Iran NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW is the best way to stop this from happening. But they are not going to get their way.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/Iranhelping.gif


Hell ray your right. Invading Iraq has gone so sucessfully what the hell let's do it again!! :rolleyes

[Nbadan]

Joe Lieberman, asked by Fox's Sean Hannity whether he could see himself supporting a Republican presidential candidate in 2008: "I definitely could, Sean. I mean, I've got to tell you, just to be a -- talk straight to you and those who are listening, so far in all of the debates and public statements, it is certainly the Republican -- the leading Republican candidates for the presidential nomination that I am much more in -- consistent with on the defining issue of our time."

Lieberman singled out John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for praise, and he went out of way of his way to knock John Edwards for saying that the "war on terror" was just a "bumper-sticker slogan." "The Arabs and the Israelis <know> that the war on terror is not a bumper sticker slogan for politics," Lieberman said. "It is a reality that they live with every day. And of course, we should, too."

And when Lieberman says that we should "live with it," he seems to mean that we should "live with it" even more than we already have: In an appearance on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Lieberman said that the United States should take military action against Iran if that country does not end its nuclear program.

Salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/06/11/lieberman/index.html?source=rss)

Democrats in Conn really need a kick in the teeth.

[Yonivore]

Salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/06/11/lieberman/index.html?source=rss)

Democrats in Conn really need a kick in the teeth.
Go Joe! If you're pissing off Dan, you're doing something right.

[AFE7FATMAN]

http://ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon061307c.gif

[Nbadan]

LITTLE ROCK, Ark., June 13 (UPI) -- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has slammed Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., for threatening military force against Iran.

...

"Sen. Lieberman's saber rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran from aiding Shiite militias in Iraq, or trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. In fact, it's highly irresponsible and counter-productive, and I would urge him to stop," Clark said.

"This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of (Iranian) President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and those who seek an excuse for military action," the retired four-star general said.

"What we need now is full-fledged engagement with Iran," he said. "All options are on the table, but we should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility before, and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options."

Linky (http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/06/13/clark_slams_lieberman_on_iran/9701)

I'm with Clark. Lieberman's saber-rattling is just edging Iranian hardliners to increase their aid to Lebanon, Syria, and the Shiia in Iraq making a confrontation more likely.

[clambake]

Joe L. and saber-rattling just don't mix. Did you see him on that last visit to Iraq? He looked like Truman Capote dressed for laser-tag.

[AFBlue]

Once a NeoCon, always a NeoCon...



Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iran ;_ylt=Agozk5smyCOMRQ1j4RsVL2ZSw60A)

Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) writes:

How in the world can a developing country with about a fourth of the population of the US, about a $2000 per capita income (in real terms, not local purchasing power), with no intercontinental ballistic missiles, with no weapons of mass destruction (and no proof positive it is trying to get them), with a small army and a small military budget-- how is such a country a "threat" to the United States of America?

Iranian leaders don't like the US, and they talk dirty about the US, and they do attempt to thwart US interests. The same is true of Venezuela under Chavez. But Tehran is a minor player on the world stage, and trying to build it up to replace the Soviet Union is just the worst sort of fear-mongering, and it is being done on behalf of the US military industrial complex, which wants to do to Iran what it did to Iraq. It is propaganda, and significant numbers of Americans (a 7 percent increase (in recent polls) would be like 21 million people!) are buying it.

I didn't hear any reference to the Soviet Union in that piece, nor have I heard it in any other statements regarding Iran.

As far as the numbers you trotted out, I'd say those are the most pointless and empty stats I've ever seen. Per Capita Income is not a determination of the government's ability to spend/borrow money in order to build up it's military/war-fighting capacity. And 1/4 of this nation's population is still 50 million people...though it's not like that matters.

In regards to weapons of mass destruction, it seems to me that America, as well as many other nations, are making a concerted effort to rid all nations (ours included) from the ability to utilize weapons with such wide-ranging and horrible effects. Allowing a country to develop nuclear capabilities with the potential to modify for use as a weapon....especially one that has been known to harbor terrorists....would be neglectful and idiotic. We've already got enough people out there with intent to harm...why give them the tools necessary to carry out their intentions?

I'm not aligning myself to Liebermann or saying that military action is necessary, but I see nothing wrong with our government paying specific attention to this situation, as well as North Korea, as well as China, as well as the former Soviet Union....any situation where the result of neglect could be the loss of innocent American lives.

[clambake]

I'm not aligning myself to Liebermann or saying that military action is necessary, but I see nothing wrong with our government paying specific attention to this situation, as well as North Korea, as well as China, as well as the former Soviet Union....any situation where the result of neglect could be the loss of innocent American lives.
Hard to argue with that. However, this is not the administration that should undertake anymore endeavors, and they are certainly not entitled to make judgements regarding who has evil intentions.

[UV Ray]

Joe L. and saber-rattling just don't mix. Did you see him on that last visit to Iraq? He looked like Truman Capote dressed for laser-tag.
:lol

[Yonivore]

Hard to argue with that. However, this is not the administration that should undertake anymore endeavors,...
I'm sure Iran is thinking the same thing. You know, sometimes our enemies try to exploit our weaknesses and leave us no choice but to strike or face a worse situation down the road.


...and they are certainly not entitled to make judgements regarding who has evil intentions.
I think Iran has evil intents. So does Syria, "Palestine" (whoever's running that hellhole today), and the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Scoop a generous amount of al Qaeda around the region and somebody's spoiling for a fight and I don't think it's the U.S.

What is your answer for Iran? A country that seems hell bent to develop nuclear weapons while calling for the destruction of Israel, becoming more oppressive with its own citizens, exporting arms that are killing our soldiers, training insurgents and terrorists, and that has a theocratic 12th Imam loon at the helm?

What's your answer for "Palestine?"

Syria?

Lebanon?

[AFBlue]

Hard to argue with that. However, this is not the administration that should undertake anymore endeavors, and they are certainly not entitled to make judgements regarding who has evil intentions.

America may not have the Military capacity to actively engage all of the situations listed above, as well as those not mentioned, but military action isn't necessary in most of those cases to this point and there are other methods to proactively address situations...such as $$, diplomatic discussion, economic sanctions, isolation, etc.

As far as this administration making judgements on the intentions (ignoring the ambiguity of the word "evil") of foreign governments...I can understand your apprehension, but the Iran case is fairly cut and dry.

[PixelPusher]

I'm sure Iran is thinking the same thing. You know, sometimes our enemies try to exploit our weaknesses and leave us no choice but to strike or face a worse situation down the road.


I think Iran has evil intents. So does Syria, "Palestine" (whoever's running that hellhole today), and the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Scoop a generous amount of al Qaeda around the region and somebody's spoiling for a fight and I don't think it's the U.S.

What is your answer for Iran? A country that seems hell bent to develop nuclear weapons while calling for the destruction of Israel, becoming more oppressive with its own citizens, exporting arms that are killing our soldiers, training insurgents and terrorists, and that has a theocratic 12th Imam loon at the helm?

What's your answer for "Palestine?"

Syria?

Lebanon?
{HINT} It's different from the current "answer" this administration has for Iraq.