Edwards stressed "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on

:wow:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html

(VIDEO) Former Senator John Edwards (Dem.) tells Herzliya Conference serious political, economic steps should be taken against Islamic Republic; 'in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table,' he says, adding that Syria should be held accountable for its support of Hizbullah, Hamas


Vice premier says Iranian president is doing a great job. 'Without him, the world would not unite in an anti-Persian policy,' he tells Herzliya Conference
Full Story



"The challenges in your own backyard – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel," said the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, referring mainly to the Iranian threat.



In his speech, Edwards criticized the United States' previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.



Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table."



On the recent UN Security Council's resolution against Iran, Edwards said more serious political and economic steps should be taken. "Iran must know that the world won’t back down," he said.

But a war on a different front is A-OK? :crazy:

When you get caught doing something bad, say "sorry". It's a magic word that nullifies all past transgressions, and you are now free to do the same bad thing again as often as you want.

Ism't that how it works?

mikey_the_rat

live by, as far as I'm concerned..

by #1, Perpetuating the fear factor, and by #2, sucking up to AIPAC. Iran is not going to act against Israel, to do otherwise would invite annihilation of their own country by the US and others.

All this talk by the Iranian leadership is rhetoric, designed to boost their image with the people of iran, nothing more.

Doncha know?

Another war with Iran is an option, according to Edwards?
Then Edwards isn't an option for me.
I'm committing to Kucinch. He propbably doesn't have a prayer but he's the only one I've seen (in the race) that has been totally straight anti-war since day one.
Another wasted vote? No. It's time for new leadership.

of favorite politicians or Dems then you need to wipe Feingold.

...before saber rattling. Here we have a madman in charge who's got his finger on the nuclear button and has used WMD on two countries (though he denies it and the deaths and disease and havoc it's caused), and Edwards has the audacity to insist IRAN never gets nuclear weapons?

Reminds me of a relative who threatened to do me extensive physical harm if he ever caught me smoking...while he puffed away on a cigarette. Not only did it do no good, but the hypocrisy wasn't great for our relationship either.

i really liked him but this statement is so dam stupid because his vision of the future is any different than what we have now. oh well money talks and reasoning walks

Some of us believe that an open dialogue with the players in the region will lead to more success than bombing the fuck out of Iran (with no Army).

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

We are bogged in Iraq

Military stretched beyond breaking point

The size of Iran & their military power dwarfs Iraq by miles

He wants out of Iraq, but is ready for Iran?

Somebody help me with this concept!

Look at the list of speakers....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4492

:eyes:

This is serious stuff...If these guys get us into a war with Iran....yikes!

that hasn't taken that position? I want to know for information reasons because I don't know (most seem to take that position). Kucinich maybe and who else?

http://kucinich.us/node/386

"This is a time for us to engage Iran with direct talks, our President to their President. This is the time to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack them.

"Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to conduct covert ops in Iran. This Administration has chosen to select 1,500 bombing targets with the Strategic Air Command. This Administration has chosen plans for a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This Administration looked the other way when a congressional staff report basically claimed that Iran was trying to engage in nuclear escalation.

"We don't need war, we need to talk, and that is what we ought to stand for here. No more Iraqs."

nor taking that stand.

P-Resident should go into Iran. But, he has other issues that might turn many DU'ers off him.

:shrug:

Most of this I posted below on this thread, but I added a bit more (the 2/5/2006 transcript) to that in this post:

No one WANTS Iran to have nuclear weapons, but Clark has explained how initiating military conflict with Iran could possibly end up more dangerous than trying to coexist with an Iran that has nuclear weapons. He specifically noted that Iran could get help from elements in Pakistan to get back nukes if the U.S. attacks Iran, leaving us in a similiar place but with a more bitterly awoved enemy. For example:

"General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
February 5, 2006

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well that's the problem with the military option. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.

And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.

They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it."


While Clark doesn't rule out force against Iran he does not issue an ultimatum either. What Clark always does is push for diplomacy. I've heard Clark say numerous times that we shouldn't be threatening people with war when we refuse to talk to them about peace. He calls that UnAmerican.

Clark backs up his concern about the increased liklihood of military conflict if Iran approaches becoming a nuclear power, by constantly calling for direct negotiations with Iran now, and for advancing regional diplomacy, now. He is up front about it. He fears that peaceful options may evaporate, that one or more parties may push brinksmanship over the brinnk, and so we need to pursue peacful options aggressively NOW, while they are still most viable. Most recently (yesterday) Clark hammered on the same point in his appeal for emails to the White House opposing the Surge:

"Changing our approach in Iraq must go hand in hand with fixing a regional strategy that has been an abject failure. For three years, the Bush administration has hectored and threatened Iran and Syria, and unsurprisingly, they have both worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq. It's time for us to get serious about talking with our enemies. And it's time for us to redouble our efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is at the root of so many problems in the Middle East.

To date, the Bush administration has shown no inclination to take these steps, which means that a troop surge will only cost more lives and time. This president needs to hear from every one in America that we will not stand for his escalation in Iraq."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9899

Here is Wes Clark talking late Summer/early Fall about the FULL range of options that should remain on the table regarding Iran:

"Panelist #3: What's your opinion? The President of Iran sent an eighteen-page letter to President Bush. I've not seen a full transcript of that, and I don't think-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Neither have I.

Panelist #3: -probably we ever will. Right. What would be your idea of, of a correct response to that letter. Do you see that as, as a good opening?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Everything in diplomacy is intended to advance the interest of one party at the expense of another. I mean, diplomacy is, it's another form of struggle. This was a measured strategy on the part of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's been no friend. On the other hand, my experience is need to talk to people, especially before you bomb them, you should talk to them. And so, I've been pressing the United States to have- open a dialog with Iran for some time. I'm not sure if the dialog will talk them out of going for a nuclear option, but I think the dialog is the right place to start. I think it's still possible to start with a dialog to propose some regional security measures that could raise the sense of security of nations and people throughout the region that might be productive. And you might be able, you might be able to avoid what seems to be an almost certain showdown coming with Iran.

I've said the military option has to remain on the table, but in truth the United States government should be planning for three options. It should be planning for first, how to dissuade Iran from getting, from wanting to have a nuclear weapon. That's the first option. Second option is how to live with an Iran if they get a nuclear weapon. And I'm not saying you could ever solve that option, but you should be looking at it. I'm not saying that it's an acceptable option, but you should be asking yourself, 'What would it take for us to be able to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon?' What would it take? A change of government? A disarmament? An international presence? What would it take? We should be asking that question, because it's only when you've asked that question that you can then go to the third line of analysis, which said, well, what if you can't dissuade them, and you can't live with it? Then what are your military options? There are clearly two set's of military options. One set is a very narrow option that goes after the nuclear production facilities themselves, and another is a much broader military option that says, not only are we going to take out your nukes, but we're going to make sure that you have no means to retaliate against us after, after you do so. So, we're taking action against Iranian interests throughout the Gulf. We're going to go after Iranian interests in Lebanon or wherever you might be, and that includes, you know, Hezbollah worldwide. We're going to arrest you wherever you are. It's, it's a huge, big option, and I don't know how feasible it is, and I don't know how you get out of it once you launch into it. But again, these three lines of analysis, they're the responsibilities of the government, and if we're not doing that, then shame on us. We should be. If they were serious, they'd be talking to the Iranians as a first step. And they're not."

The above was taken from the Clark Podcast; "Common Voices in Iowa"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/6070

One has to talk about being strong on Defense by supporting action against Iran to be elected. :eyes:

and he doesn't know a damn thing about Iran today.

What's new?

Has us all convinced now that because he's warning about Iran, Iran must be no problem at all.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Let's see, they have a few grams of five percent enriched uranium. Good enough for reactor fuel, but far from being weapons grade stuff. Ooo, they have a real army to defend themselves with, and they haven't used it to attack anybody else. Yes, they have a reactionary in charge, one who wouldn't have been there if the US hadn't started in with this "axis of evil" shit. The Iranian population was, and is, angling for getting more moderate, less religious rule in their government, but when six gun George went and shot his mouth off, the Iranian people got pissed and elected Ahmadinejad just to spite us.

Really, about the only country Iran is a threat to is Israel, and frankly they are fully capable of taking care of themselves.

Look at this sentence for a moment:

'Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table."'

Don't you think perhaps the writer framed this in such a way to make it look like a prominent American backs something the Israelis want to do? I mean it's one thing to say, "all options must remain on the table" and its another thing to say, I think we should take military action. I wouldn't necessarily put all my stock in this article. Look at other articles before you make such a decision.

positions are highly laudable, i.e., mostly lifting up the working class people to a higher quality of life.

He is on top of it. I can't believe some of the posts I'm reading here. Just because Bush screwed up so bad doesn't mean things have changed as far as Iranian and Palestinian problems exist. Get real. Edwards is on our side.

Is he opposed to any "pre-emptive" strike against Iran? That being said, it certainly isn't what Edwards on the whole should be judged about.

I was just stating I find it problematic in the sense that they might could be convinced to act on something through persuasion that might be unwise.

is quite enough. We get it...no need to spam the thread any more unless you have a new point to make.

And like everyone else said, Feingold is not running for President, so we don't have to worry about Feingold calling in the troops because he will never be near that kind of power. A President will.

I hope this is a misinterpretation, because a man who starts to talk about war only a week or two after he apologized for sponsoring the last war is a bit on the insincere side.

many others hold the same position. So to be fair they have to blast ALL that hold the same stance.

besides Kucinich

Have you heard any other Deomocratic Candidate with the courage to openly identify "Living with a nuclear armed Iran" as one of the options that a sane American foreign policy needs to at least consider? Has Kucinich actually spelled that out? Doing so is what tends to open Democrats to attacks. Calling for Peace without confronting the "what if" should Iran get nukes side steps some of those attacks, but not talking about that gives the war hawks an upper hand in spreading fear.

Clark keeps ALL options on the table, and that includes some form of co-existance of the sort that the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in for decades. I have not heard any other Democrat talk about that. For most, leaving "all options on the table" is usually only code talk for we may need to attack Iran militarily. Please correct me if I am wrong about Kucinich. I respect Dennis Kucinich a lot.

I don't know if he has said that he is willing to go to war.

You keep repeating yourself with no evidence.

No one WANTS Iran to have nuclear weapons, but Clark has explained how initiating military conflict with Iran could possibly end up more dangerous than trying to coexist with an Iran that has nuclear weapons. He specifically noted that Iran could get help from elements in Pakistan to get back nukes if the U.S. attacks Iran, for example. While clark doesn't rule out force against Iran he does not issue an ultimatum either. What Clark always does is push for diplomacy. I've heard Clark say other times that we shouldn't be threatening people with war when we refuse to talk to them about peace.

Clark backs up his concern about the increased liklihood of military conflict if Iran approaches becoming a nuclear power, by constantly calling for direct negotiations with Iran now, and for advancing regional diplomacy, now. He is up front about it. He fears that peaceful options may evaporate, that one or more parties may push brinksmanship over the brinnk, and so we need to pursue peacful options aggressively NOW, while they are still most viable. Most recently (yesterday) Clark hammered on the same point in his appeal for emails to the White House opposing the Surge:

"Changing our approach in Iraq must go hand in hand with fixing a regional strategy that has been an abject failure. For three years, the Bush administration has hectored and threatened Iran and Syria, and unsurprisingly, they have both worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq. It's time for us to get serious about talking with our enemies. And it's time for us to redouble our efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is at the root of so many problems in the Middle East.

To date, the Bush administration has shown no inclination to take these steps, which means that a troop surge will only cost more lives and time. This president needs to hear from every one in America that we will not stand for his escalation in Iraq."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9899

Here is Wes Clark talking late Summer/early Fall about the FULL range of options that should remain on the table regarding Iran:

"Panelist #3: What's your opinion? The President of Iran sent an eighteen-page letter to President Bush. I've not seen a full transcript of that, and I don't think-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Neither have I.

Panelist #3: -probably we ever will. Right. What would be your idea of, of a correct response to that letter. Do you see that as, as a good opening?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Everything in diplomacy is intended to advance the interest of one party at the expense of another. I mean, diplomacy is, it's another form of struggle. This was a measured strategy on the part of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's been no friend. On the other hand, my experience is need to talk to people, especially before you bomb them, you should talk to them. And so, I've been pressing the United States to have- open a dialog with Iran for some time. I'm not sure if the dialog will talk them out of going for a nuclear option, but I think the dialog is the right place to start. I think it's still possible to start with a dialog to propose some regional security measures that could raise the sense of security of nations and people throughout the region that might be productive. And you might be able, you might be able to avoid what seems to be an almost certain showdown coming with Iran.

I've said the military option has to remain on the table, but in truth the United States government should be planning for three options. It should be planning for first, how to dissuade Iran from getting, from wanting to have a nuclear weapon. That's the first option. Second option is how to live with an Iran if they get a nuclear weapon. And I'm not saying you could ever solve that option, but you should be looking at it. I'm not saying that it's an acceptable option, but you should be asking yourself, 'What would it take for us to be able to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon?' What would it take? A change of government? A disarmament? An international presence? What would it take? We should be asking that question, because it's only when you've asked that question that you can then go to the third line of analysis, which said, well, what if you can't dissuade them, and you can't live with it? Then what are your military options? There are clearly two set's of military options. One set is a very narrow option that goes after the nuclear production facilities themselves, and another is a much broader military option that says, not only are we going to take out your nukes, but we're going to make sure that you have no means to retaliate against us after, after you do so. So, we're taking action against Iranian interests throughout the Gulf. We're going to go after Iranian interests in Lebanon or wherever you might be, and that includes, you know, Hezbollah worldwide. We're going to arrest you wherever you are. It's, it's a huge, big option, and I don't know how feasible it is, and I don't know how you get out of it once you launch into it. But again, these three lines of analysis, they're the responsibilities of the government, and if we're not doing that, then shame on us. We should be. If they were serious, they'd be talking to the Iranians as a first step. And they're not."

The above was taken from the Clark Podcast; "Common Voices in Iowa"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/6070

that there is NO solid evidence that Iran is building or seeking nuclear weapons. Everything that Iran has done up to this point has been in accordance with the NPT. The NPT allows ALL signatories to peacefully enrich uranium for power production. Let the IAEA do its job.

I am beginning to think that some DUers have not learned the lessons of the Iraq war.....trumped up fear on a weak, unproven, and distant threat is just what got us 3,000 dead soldiers and $300 billion more in debt. Not to mention that now everyoe hates us for breaking in the idea "pre-emptive war" since it was put to rest in WW2.

People need to stop seeing all of politics through the lens of fear.

And if Israel is the chief concern, then I see the source of the disconnect. I have no loyalty to Israel and will develop none...Israel is not my country. They are just another country like Nepal or Brazil. I worry more about this country, which ostensibly, needs the care of its citizens. I do not wish to see more of our money, youth, and reputation poured down the bucket for some other country when we refuse to take care of our own citizens.

"all options must remain on table"

Reasonable and standard to use the term so as not to weaken diplomatic efforts in the future.

What I wonder about more is what Edwards is doing speaking to this gathering of neocon warhawks?

I hope a transcript of the full speech will be available.

Any Dem that claims they would never use force, if needed, is a moron who we should never, EVER elect.
Period.

is on the verge of something sinister without proof isn't prudent when leaders will lie a country into war.

However, the tone of the conference itself is troubling.



http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2007/01/israelis_americ.html#more

all addressing this conference. The fact that Richard Perle and other Bush Administration Hawks of his ilk were present also would be welcomed by candidates of that ilk.

Can you provide more info on this group and their goals?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I hope more people see this as we move forward with his campaign.

He's done this all along, you know.

You don't take any option off the table in a negotiation.

And people are jumping to idiotic conclusion that Edwards wants war with Iran.

This is standard language. Do you expect Edwards or any American politician to say they welcome Iran getting nukes?

And I don't like the idea of Iran getting nukes and selling them to Islamic fundie terrorists to set off wherever they please.

And we were led into a war against Iraq largely on the pretext of having to stop just that. Bush, in his statements at the time, did not take any options off the table, including diplomacy, until he revealed his cards. But Bush was always oriented toward a military conflict with Iraq no matter what he spoke in public. And Bush always asociated himself with those who felt the same way. To this day Bush will deny that he was not open to diplomacy, but he was always expecting War.

Let's try another!!

does he have a hidden agenda we don't know about?

:shrug: