I guess Iran just made hillary's recent vote look pretty foolish

If it didn't seem stupid before the latest from Iran sure makes it look so now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3010496

Iran labels CIA 'terrorist organization'

It would be freaking hilarious if we weren't playing a very dangerous game here.

In case they wanna do they same towards us?

around the world...so we will be in lots of wars...

that was a good one.

This is not calling them bad. This was a lot more serious than that. And obviously part of a war strategy.

between calling a country's army a "terrorist organization" and calling a country's " secret intelligence gathering agency" a terrorist organization- especially with the history of said "secret intelligence gathering agency".


What has the Iranian Army ever done in this country as opposed to perhaps what the CIA has done in Iran?? Just sayin' I agree and think there is a difference.

"our boys over there". If anyone, the republicans are responsible for their deaths.

funny how all the "bad guys" are living on top of oil that belongs to Hallibur...wait I mean the US.

How did the US's oil get under their land? They must be bad guys, then.

you know, the irony is, I used to say to people "you must have made a wrong turn on the internet",. but now I just realize its where DU really wants to be now.

From a diplomatic standpoint is just plain stupid.

I think we should point out the bad guys.

But the odds of the US Senate having the guts to introduce a resolution declaring the CIA to be a terrorist organization seem pretty slim.

.
Chess player thinks moves ahead while the checker player plans a move or two ahead.
.

labeled as a terrorist organization. GWB has cover.

with pens and tv statements than something like increasing military actions, don't you think?

Neither the recent US Senate Resolution nor this one from Iran, apparently changes anything as they are non-binding. Its not a game for both countries to air their grievances. And it wasn't a game for our Senators that voted Aye, they would not vote aye without major changes to the resolution. That was as much a message to the President as to Iran that we are not seriously supporting the idea of military intervention in Iran.

I'm sorry if this is contrary to your view, but I am going to keep saying it until I am banned. lol.

Diplomacy could soften the rhetoric, and defuse military action. These words are steps toward war, not from it.

Why not chose the path that doesn't escalate?

towards war, rather I see this leading to more diplomacy. Call me nuts. But our Senate rejected the language about use of military instruments. It was a message heard loud and clear by all except the netroots I guess.

The other part of this is we cannot expect Iran to come to the table without some increased pressure. In the recent hearings there was testimony about that. That Iran has not as yet signaled the desire for serious negotiations. So its not without some merit to send them a message.

They may have cut out some military language, but I expect the next vote on it will have stronger language. Things gain momentum, and they get harder to reign in.
With time we will see, and I hope, J4W, you are right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1943512&mesg_id=1943512

only a non-binding resolution, eh?

a step towards diplomacy, eht?

screw that, this is the most evil administration ever, never give them a foot in the door.

to the pugs in the Senate help? Please, please be nice and vote the way I want you to, pretty please?

Please Iran, stop sending arms and fighters into Iraq they are killing our soldiers. Really, can't you just be nice?

Diplomacy is a great word, but if you just say let's do that diplomacy thing without any specifics it ends up empty of any meaning.

The UN with our help has passed resolutions on Iran dating back to at least 2005, Iran has continually announced that they will ignore them. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/28/america/nations.php


What is the next step?

The US needs Iran to be a positive and stabilizing force in Iraq. Iran needs a stable Iraq.

We still have years, perhaps decades, before Iran could develop a nuclear weapon and inspectors believe the program is peaceful. We have alot of time to work out deals before we need to provide bushit his cover to perpetuate his war profiteering. The Senate should not pass any resolutions on Iran until we have a new president.

As for the claim that Iran is supporting terrorism against Americans in Iraq, so is Saudi Arabia. You can include Petraus'weapons and Blackwaters arms smuggling. It's propaganda that Iran needs to be dealt with *now*.

We should have a standing summit of Iraq and ALL of its neighbors. We do have common goals and interests. And we should have serious negotiations.


I understand needing leverage, but leverage without serious talks with *the enemy* is, IMO, an escalation. If this is a start to serious negotiations, great. But, I've heard many a time that US DOES NOT negotiate with terrorists. And now, it is the sense of the Senate and of bushit that part of the Iranian Government is a terrorist organization.

The way we are judging Iran's army as a terrorist organization is so broad and meaningless anyone can apply to ourselves.

Let's just look at our relations with Iran. First we overthrow their democracy and install a the Shah as dictator, essentially for oil. After they kick the Shah out, along with us, we support give weapons (including WMD) and support to Iraq to start a war against them. Millions of people dead, and two wars against Iraq later, we are now funding terrorist groups that operate inside Iranian borders.

The CIA has been behind many vicious and horrible crimes. From death squad running dictators all over the Latin America, while doing things like gunning down people on the steps of a church during a funeral. Many, many, many assassination attempts. Our country also protects two notorious Latin American terrorists, Orlando Bosch (pardoned by Bush 1 for Jeb) and Posada, responsible for blowing up a Cuban airliner with 73 civilians in it and more.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB157/index.htm

In the name of anti-terrorism we have started a war that his killed millions of people, and made refugees out of four million more. A war that was unnecessary for our own protection, and WE KNEW IT. But, you know, we're the good guys so it's okay.

and I won't ever vote for either of them.

Traitor Joe tried to split the Democratic Party with Karl Rove's help. 'Nuff said.

Either she doesn't have a clue, or she's foolishly thinking that its over, and she'll be the nominee. Not so fast, Hillary.

...

its just stating a fact, after all.

That the CIA aren't terrorists, they're "freedom fighters". :sarcasm: