Clinton, Obama, Edwards Support Striking Iran

[Mikhail Frunze]

Over the past weekend Hillary Clinton pledged to end the war in Iraq if she is elected. “If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will,” she told a large crowd at the Democratic National Committee’s winter convention in Washington.

It was the first time since announcing her candidacy that Hillary acknowledged the growing movement against the war when discussing Iraq, which faced its bloodiest period since the invasion almost four years ago with over 1,000 reported deaths in the last seven days alone. Also in attendance at the DNC meeting were other presidential hopefuls, including John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama, who both attempted to paint themselves as the best antiwar candidate in the hunt for the White House.

The top candidates’ tepid words on Iraq were a sign of what’s to come over the next year and a half as their rhetorical talents are turned on high. Despite Obama’s reassurance that he did not support the war from the beginning, along with Edwards’ claims that he’s had a change of heart on his past pro-war votes -- neither candidate distinguished their position from the Bush administration when it came to the looming Iran confrontation.

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly: “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons . . . The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”

Hillary Clinton pushed virtually the same bitter line while addressing the annual AIPAC convention held in New York City last week. “U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,'' Clinton told the crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat . . . no option can be taken off the table.''

Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails. To put it bluntly, none of the front running Democrats are opposed to Bush’s dubious “war on terror” or his bullying of Iran. They support his aggression in principle but simply believe a Democratic presidency could handle the job more astutely. All put Israel first and none are going to fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Times like these require bravery. They require a fight. A fight against immoral and illegal policies. A fight against tyranny. A fight for freedom. Freedom from hatred. Freedom from occupation. Americans and the people of the Middle East deserve better than Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. They deserve to live their lives without the threat of warfare and bloodshed. They deserve to live without fear.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/02/...html&frame=true (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/02/07/why-the-democrats-wont-save-us-clinton-edwards-and-obama-call-for-striking-iran/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinejournal.com%2Fartman%2Fpub lish%2Farticle_1723.shtml&frame=true)

[The Anarchist Prince]

Not to sound like an asshole, or stupid, but the Middle East lives in general bloodshed, with or without our intervention. (Yes, I realize ALOT of it is our fault, but warring tribes, factions, and sects certaintly cause enough violence without us being involved)


Sadly, I think we're going to jump from one shithole of a war, into a BIGGER shithole of a war, because: A.) Iran hates us, and B.) Has a sizable army. They'd most likely be more capable in striking US interests, and fighting our Army in urban warfare. Even if we were to just stick with bombings, terror attacks would rise tenfold.

[R_P_A_S]

didn't Britain drew the borders for the middle east?

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:26 am
didn't Britain drew the borders for the middle east?
Yeah, in fact a lot of the problems in both Africa and the Middle East rose out of the way the European powers carved them up when they broke up the old colonial empires.

[metalero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 01:54 am
Not to sound like an asshole, or stupid, but the Middle East lives in general bloodshed, with or without our intervention. (Yes, I realize ALOT of it is our fault, but warring tribes, factions, and sects certaintly cause enough violence without us being involved)


Sadly, I think we're going to jump from one shithole of a war, into a BIGGER shithole of a war, because: A.) Iran hates us, and B.) Has a sizable army. They'd most likely be more capable in striking US interests, and fighting our Army in urban warfare. Even if we were to just stick with bombings, terror attacks would rise tenfold.
Iran has collaborated with the International Atomic Enery Agency to let clear they want to have every nation right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and even if they didn't, US imperialism is putting them further to the choice of nuclear development as a deterrent for a US attack which is inminent. As long as individual states keep pursuing nuclear programs there's always the danger of nuclear use for warfare, The IAEA has made it clear. So long, the fervent opposers of that are the imperialist nuclear powers and their lackeys. Please ellaborate more on How Iran "Hate U.S."

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by ComradeR+February 11, 2007 09:50 am--> (ComradeR @ February 11, 2007 09:50 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 07:26 am
didn't Britain drew the borders for the middle east?
Yeah, in fact a lot of the problems in both Africa and the Middle East rose out of the way the European powers carved them up when they broke up the old colonial empires. [/b]
Ya , even if you look at the Rwandan genocide it was brought upon race hate between hutu and tutsi both races were just made from scratch by Belgian colonists <_<

[Janus]

Not surprising here. Any major US politician would support surgical strikes against Iran in order to destroy hostile threats in that country for the purposes of national security.


didn&#39;t Britain drew the borders for the middle east?
Yes, Great Britain and France.

[The Anarchist Prince]

Originally posted by metalero+February 11, 2007 01:23 pm--> (metalero @ February 11, 2007 01:23 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 01:54 am
Not to sound like an asshole, or stupid, but the Middle East lives in general bloodshed, with or without our intervention. (Yes, I realize ALOT of it is our fault, but warring tribes, factions, and sects certaintly cause enough violence without us being involved)


Sadly, I think we&#39;re going to jump from one shithole of a war, into a BIGGER shithole of a war, because: A.) Iran hates us, and B.) Has a sizable army. They&#39;d most likely be more capable in striking US interests, and fighting our Army in urban warfare. Even if we were to just stick with bombings, terror attacks would rise tenfold.
Iran has collaborated with the International Atomic Enery Agency to let clear they want to have every nation right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and even if they didn&#39;t, US imperialism is putting them further to the choice of nuclear development as a deterrent for a US attack which is inminent. As long as individual states keep pursuing nuclear programs there&#39;s always the danger of nuclear use for warfare, The IAEA has made it clear. So long, the fervent opposers of that are the imperialist nuclear powers and their lackeys. Please ellaborate more on How Iran "Hate U.S." [/b]
Ah, I made the mistake of generalizing....I should say SOME Iranians hate the US (Primarily the government/extremists), and some don&#39;t hate the US, just the current administration. In all honesty, Iran could be the most pro-US country in the region. That doesn&#39;t stop their government from disliking not only Bush, but our country, as they clearly do. I should explain myself better, and for that, I apologize. :blush:


I honestly have no problem with other countries building nuclear weapons or power plants. Who is the US to patrol the globe, acting like we&#39;re the only ones that are "responsible" enough to have nuclear power/arms?

[Mikhail Frunze]

In all honesty, Iran could be the most pro-US country in the region.

Highly dubious. All the pro-U.S. intellentsia and Savak thugs emigrated. It&#39;s difficult to believe that the Iranian people have an opinion of the Yankees different from that of their neighbours:



The survey of 3,850 people in six Arab countries rated President George W. Bush as the most disliked world leader, while the United States and Israel were viewed as significantly greater threats than Iran.

Respondents were asked to identify which world leader outside of their own country they disliked most.

Bush was named by 38 percent, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon by 11 percent, current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert by 7 percent and British Prime Minister Tony Blair by 3 percent.

The most admired leader was Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Islamic militant group in Lebanon, with 14 percent.

Seventy-nine percent of the respondents cited Israel as their biggest threat, while the United States was named by 74 percent. Iran, which Washington considers a major threat because of its nuclear ambitions, was named by only 6 percent of the Arabs surveyed.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08208702.htm

[Guerrilla22]

Why won&#39;t the Democrats save us? Most likely because the Democraatic party is mostly interested in advancing neo-liberal economic policies than anything else. If an attack on Iran would open up the Iran to the US amrketplace they&#39;d be all for it. Their so-called opposition to the War in Iraq is nothing but a political ploy they have been using to gain power.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:26 am
didn&#39;t Britain drew the borders for the middle east?
I always cringe when Arabs identify with these artificial borders.

Even pan-Arab nationalism is better.

[Mikhail Frunze]

I&#39;ve been thinking lately that maybe America should go to war with Iran. Conscription can be reinstated. This has the potential to revolutionize society and pave way for another Great October Socialist Revolution.

[Red Heretic]

Think again. The US imperialists are leaning more toward a strategy completely around bombing (possibly with nuclear weapons).

[Janus]

Conscription can be reinstated. This has the potential to revolutionize society and pave way for another Great October Socialist Revolution.
That&#39;s a strange reason to support an imperialist war. It may ferment greater activism in the US but the divide that it will cause as well as the damage that it will deal to the people of Iran will probably outweigh that.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+February 12, 2007 03:12 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ February 12, 2007 03:12 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 07:26 am
didn&#39;t Britain drew the borders for the middle east?
I always cringe when Arabs identify with these artificial borders.

Even pan-Arab nationalism is better. [/b]
Pan-Arab nationalism was a major threat to the imperialists.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13, 2007 04:42 am
Think again. The US imperialists are leaning more toward a strategy completely around bombing (possibly with nuclear weapons).
You don&#39;t think a bombing campain would lead to ground fighting? Even if the US doesnt initially send troops into Iran ground fighting would still break out on the border, which would most likely escalate into a full scale invasion by one side or the other.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Spirit of Spartacus+February 13, 2007 09:33 am--> (Spirit of Spartacus @ February 13, 2007 09:33 am)
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 12, 2007 03:12 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 07:26 am
didn&#39;t Britain drew the borders for the middle east?
I always cringe when Arabs identify with these artificial borders.

Even pan-Arab nationalism is better.
Pan-Arab nationalism was a major threat to the imperialists. [/b]
Which is most likely the reason the European powers drew up the borders the way they did.

[Comrade-Z]

I would like to show to you all a recent exchange I have had on the issues of Iran and Iraq and such. It&#39;s very revealing about "liberal" attitudes to the war...


I can&#39;t speak for all Democrats, but here&#39;s what I think:
I think the american government has done a lot of shitty things in the
past. Basically anything having to do with latin america, iran, etc,
etc. We all know the history. I think this war was a terrible idea. I
thing george bush has completely overstepped his boundaries.
That being said...
I don&#39;t think it was necessarily part of a larger trend. I think people
were deceived. I care about human rights more than I care about the
U.S. failing miserably. I think that the best way to ensure human
rights is to make a strategic, long term plan for withdrawl that does
it&#39;s best to stop civil war. However, we may have fucked it up to much
already.
I hope that makes sense.

My response...


Okay, I understand your position. That said, it still seems completely incomprehensible to me. I notion that "the best way to ensure human rights" is a long term occupation that only recedes gradually and conditionally........that is a recipe for even more unmitigated disaster in Iraq, not plan for ensuring human rights at all. If you don&#39;t believe me, just ask the Iraqis.

"The only clear accomplishment of the US presence in Iraq has been to create more enemies. There is little American troops can do to stop the killing because they are mistrusted, if not hated, by nearly all sides. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis consider American troops a destabilizing force, even the enemy. In a September poll by the University of Maryland, 78 percent of Iraqis said that the US military is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing"; 71 percent, including 74 percent of Shiites and 91 percent of Sunnis, want US soldiers out within a year or less; and 61 percent of Iraqis favor attacks on American troops."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061218/editors

So...we either pull out immediately and Iraq has a murderous civil war...or we have a prolongued, gradually-terminating and conditional pullout (as if those conditions will ever be met&#33;) over the course of...who knows how long, and a resulting really really murderous civil war. I don&#39;t understand how you can support the second option if you care about human rights.

And besides, the Iraqis live there, so they should be the most knowledgeable about their country, correct? Where do people get the idea that they know how to promote the well-being of the Iraqis better than the Iraqis themselves? To me, it just reeks of imperial arrogance and the "white-man&#39;s-burden" line of thought, whether it is meant that way intentionally or not.

I would also remind you that the same arguments were advanced about Vietnam concerning the "bloodshed" and "domino effect" that would result if the U.S. pulled out of South Vietnam. Well, once the U.S. terminated its involvement in Vietnam (once the U.S. withdrew its funding of the South Vietnamese government in 1975), the North Vietnamese quickly and handily triumphed. And then...things got back to normal. There was no "chaos" and "bloodshed." Now Vietnam is an independent country and a trading partner with the U.S.

Immediate, unconditional pullout...Light-years better than the current strategy and rationale for Iraq, which amounts to "Whoops, I broke your finger. Here, let me cut it off for you..." In the meantime, we can also get to work on dismantling the rest of our empire, including our hundreds of foreign military bases, the billions of dollars in military aid that we give to client states and puppet regimes, as well as withdrawing any other deployments of troops.

Her response...


I totally understand where you are coming from. However, I do not think that the military right now is making a good faith effort to train the Iraqis to govern effectively. I know that they should be able to take responsibility, but they lived under an oppressive regime for many years. They probably do not have the same level of experience as our officers. That being said. I think a withdrawal is necessary. I just think it should happen in a specified timespan. It&#39;s not the white man&#39;s burden, because it&#39;s essentially the U.S. saying... we&#39;ve got 6 months (or whatever), and we&#39;ll try to give you the resources to succeed on your own, even if it&#39;s only to cover our own reputation.
I appreciate your point of view. I certainly don&#39;t like the situation we&#39;re in. I just think that the military can do more good than harm if given a specific time frame and specific non-combat goals to build an effective infrastructure.

My response...


No, it very much is the white man&#39;s burden because of your implicit assumption that the Iraqis are not capable of effective self-governance and that they need us to instruct them how to do so. Guess what: this idea is not new. It goes all the way back to 1918, when Britain first got its fangs into Iraq after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during WWI.

TREATY OF VERSAILLES
ARTICLE 22.

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League........[exerpt clipped]"

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versa...aty/ver001.html (http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/ver001.html)
[my bolding]

The imperial powers didn&#39;t have benevolent intentions when they used this language back then, and they don&#39;t have benevolent intentions now.

Just think: for the 88 years of Iraq&#39;s existence, Britain has been occupying Iraq or at war with Iraq for 45 of them&#33; And now Britain is back for more&#33; (But now as the junior partner of an even more dominating imperialist power, the U.S.)

As long as the U.S. is in Iraq, the U.S. can "train" the Iraqis to govern themselves all they want. The Iraqi regime will still be about as democratic as the Vichy regime in France during the Nazi occupation. Which is to say, the Iraqis don&#39;t need our "benevolent tutelage" (as if such an imperial power were capable of such a thing). The only thing that the Iraqis need is to expel the occupier. Afterwards, they will collectively create whatever society they want to create. Thanks to our wonderful work there, it might resemble much more closely a medieval despotism than any kind of "liberal democracy," at least initially. However, that will still be light-years ahead of where Iraq would be as a perpetual neo-colony of the U.S. After all, despots die. Political orders tend to modernize and liberalize given economic development. On the other hand, the idea that the U.S. will ever leave when kindly asked to do so is either pure naiveté or gross ignorance of the history of U.S. foreign intervention since 1945--or both). Right now, Iraqis are facing the choice between submitting to continued U.S. "training" and "tutelage", being reduced to the status of El Salvador or the middle-eastern equivalent of a "banana republic," and having to fight the U.S. again in the future in order to expel the U.S. (albeit after the U.S. is firmly entrenched with permanent military installations and a well-crafted puppet regime)...OR, Iraqis can expel the occupier right now. So far, most Iraqis have intelligently chosen the second option.

Seriously, the kind of rhetoric that liberals in the U.S. spout about Iraq--do you have any idea how offensive this rhetoic must be to Iraqis? It&#39;s as if the U.S. were invaded by Germany, and the Germans were admonishing us to stop resisting the occupation and its puppet regime and allow the German occupation more time to "train" us as to how to "govern ourselves." If a German occupation official had the gall to tell me such nonsense, I&#39;d spit in his face...or take aim with my RPG.

In light of the U.S.&#39;s recent historical track record, we are basically saying to Iraqis, "C&#39;mon, we just want to build up your infrastructure&#33; Why don&#39;t you believe us?&#33; Why don&#39;t you just stop resisting and submit to your new master--er, I mean, tutors?&#33; Just like the Phillipines have done, and Colombia, and El Salvador, and Saudi Arabia, and all those other wonderful places where we&#39;ve used our colonial influence to do so much good for those people: bring democracy, build-up infrastructure, promote stability and general prosperity.......okay, actually, our colonial influence has accomplished none of those things in any of those countries. Fine, we admit that they are puppet governments and dictatorships. We&#39;ll admit that we&#39;ve plundered their natural resources, bribed their elites, and left the rest of their countries to rot. We&#39;ll admit that those places are still hellholes of underdevelopment and instability, thanks to our continued influence. But we promise that Iraq will be different."

I don&#39;t know how you could assert that Iraq will be any different while keeping a straight face. Iraq will simply experience more and more unmitigated disaster the longer the U.S. stays there. The U.S. needs to leave NOW.

I also found this comment interesting: "...even if it&#39;s only to cover our own reputation." I don&#39;t understand. What reputation is this that we need to maintain? Our reputation as the world&#39;s strongest imperial power? Are you afraid that all of the rest of the U.S.&#39;s client states will recognize that a rag-tag bunch of insurgents can defeat our empire? Oh, the horrors&#33;&#33;&#33; What will we do without our empire?&#33; In reality, we average citizens will be much better off without having to support this barbaric empire. Just think:
*We foot the bill for it.
*We provide the cannon-fodder for it.
*We sacrifice our civil liberties for it.
*We earn the undying hatred of almost everyone around the world as a result of it.
**Consequently, we average citizens actually become less secure as a result of it.
*And finally, we average citizens receive few or none of the spoils of this empire. What do we ultimately gain from it? Only perpetual lies and misery.

[Les Enragés]

Damn it, how I hate these bourgeois politicians&#33; They are pig shit.

[Dimentio]

What did she answer?

BTW, it is theoretically very simple to create order in Iraq. Just wipe out 50% of the population.

[I am not serious and I am against the occupation, I was just saying what the US could do if it wanted to keep control].

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Spirit of Spartacus+February 13, 2007 09:33 am--> (Spirit of Spartacus @ February 13, 2007 09:33 am)
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 12, 2007 03:12 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 07:26 am
didn&#39;t Britain drew the borders for the middle east?
I always cringe when Arabs identify with these artificial borders.

Even pan-Arab nationalism is better.
Pan-Arab nationalism was a major threat to the imperialists. [/b]
Yep. Replacing imperialism with pseudo-leftist and Islamist dictatorships is truly a progressive step. :huh:

Remember, totalitarians and Islamist extremists want to crush us as badly as the imperialists do and as badly as they may want to crush said imperialists.

[Mikhail Frunze]

Yep. Replacing imperialism with pseudo-leftist and Islamist dictatorships is truly a progressive step.

Egypt during Nasser, Syria during Assad, Algeria during Boumedienne, and Iraq during Bakr were immensely progressive and revolutionary both in terms economic and social policies. These kind of governments have demonstrated to act in the interests of the proletariat and against those of imperialism. The nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Company was a huge blow to imperialism in the region. I strongly resent your characterization of these governments as "pseudo-leftist" and your comparison of them to royal and theocratic dictatorships. Communists should seek to form a popular front with anti-imperialist, secular socialists in the Middle East like in Syria.