[corolaelwis]

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 . . .

Hmmm....

The Hillary Spot on National Review Online

Seems to me everyone seems a threat in the Mid East according to Edwards...

Of course he didn't have it in him to say Israel was a huge threat to the world while he was actually in Israel less than a month ago...

[br`lorance]

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.

Why the Democrats won’t save us: Clinton, Edwards and Obama call for striking Iran

[merloermfgj]

Yes. I heard Hillary angrily declaring this some days ago. Her voice kept getting louder the closer she got to finishing the sentence.

She also said that it needed to be perfectly clear that ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE.

Damned Democrats are going to vote us into another war.

Go figure.

[Thifiadardivy]

If Dems support going into Iran, it would not surprise me any more than a Republican supporting going into Iran.

To me the notion that there is a difference between the two factions of the Republicrats is downright hilarious. They are harming our country with red and blue state fascism and all most people can do it argue which color looks better. *sigh*...

[kranfid]

Every candidate for president seems to believe that they have to talk tough to get elected. It's because they have no respect for the intelligence of the voter, and unfortunately, the voters have proven their point time and time again.

Surgical strikes aren't feasible, because we aren't sure where to hit.
Invasion isn't feasible because Iran would be tougher than Iraq, and we couldn't even make that work. Iran is mountainous, armor would be of little use, and the effectiveness of air power is greatly reduced in mountainous terrain. Nobody is foolish enough to expect songs and flowers this time, it would be spirited resistance the whole way way in. Now if the Iraqis could defeat 150,000 US troops, it's pretty clear we don't have the manpower to take on Iran and win.

I've heard people say that the only feasible operation that would guarantee we took out their capability would involve inserting large numbers of troops quickly to secure the nuclear facilities, destroy them completely and then leave quickly. This operation would be fraught with risk, and undoubtedly it would incur high casualties, and the possibility of devastating failure would be very high, and there is a real question as to whether the military is capable of pulling it off.

[Haremporblape]

I'm not surprised. Dems sacrifice some of their ideals so they can appeal to the middle; though the democratic base doesn't support war, the broader middle ground wouldn't be too against it if it was war with an Iran that might nuke us.
Isn't this standard campaigning? Dems appeal to their base by being anti-war, but afraid of being called commies or terrorist lovers, mainstream dems prefer the middle.

Emptypepsi, I think the difference is that 'publicrats don't really care about appealing to the middle as long as their sure they can get just enough people from their base. The rise of anti-war republicans might throw a curveball into that tradition, but I don't know.

Not that anyone is asking, but Bill Richardson is my pick. Governor, United Nations ambassador, US energy secretary, congressman, 4 time nobel peace prize nominee (3 more times than Rush, hahaha!), recognized by Forbes magazine as the most fiscally conservative dem... and he's been clear that war should only be an expensive last resort, to be used in the most dire circumstances.

[24MurinivaMak]

Hmmm maybe I better start backing Richardson...

[merloermfgj]

Surgical strikes aren't feasible, because we aren't sure where to hit.

True. We know "where" to hit in general, meaning we know all possible loacations, but admittedly do not know WHICH of them are active. The problem is the depth and the sheer number of the targets.

The Iranians have been savvy in their creation of their underground/bunker development locations. There is possibly (figured) at least 7 dummy locations to every legitimate target.

Out satellites have pinpointed every underground chamber within Iran. The only thing it cannot do is determine EXACTLY what is in each one.

They take the size, the traffic, the security of each site, and combine it with the physical intel that is received, and they make the best decision they can.

The problem is that the only way to be sure is to hit EVERY one with some of the most sophisticated and expensive explosive devices ever built. The cost would dwarf the air-war prior to DS1 and Iraq.

And to top it off, the ONLY way to be SURE that the air strikes did the damage we need to do, is to get PHYSICAL eyes on the target.

That takes a huge operation of either SFODA's, SEALS, or other special operations uunits.....OR.....it takes an invasion in the aftremath.

Now, for an invasion:

Invasion isn't feasible because Iran would be tougher than Iraq, and we couldn't even make that work. Iran is mountainous, armor would be of little use, and the effectiveness of air power is greatly reduced in mountainous terrain. Nobody is foolish enough to expect songs and flowers this time, it would be spirited resistance the whole way way in. Now if the Iraqis could defeat 150,000 US troops, it's pretty clear we don't have the manpower to take on Iran and win.

While I am as pessimistic in general as you are, it is false to say that it is not feasible. You have to understand that it has already been made clear that if a strike on Iran were to take place, there would be no occupation or nation-building.

So, if the invasion is to take place, then not only would we have to take out the purported Nuke sites with iar strikes, but we would have to pound their military infrastructure as well, making it the longest, largest, and perhaps most difficult air-strike mission in history.

Then, an invasion would have to be staggeringly overwhelming. More so than Iraq. While I am a novice (I never planned operations larger than Platoon-size, but was in the military for 20+ years total, and in the largest military actions of the times), I would guess that it would take about 400,000 troops minimum to correctly do the job, and to prevent another Iraq.

Then, there could be NO OCCUPATION. There could be NO NATION-BUILDING.

None.

And there are no plans for that.

I've heard people say that the only feasible operation that would guarantee we took out their capability would involve inserting large numbers of troops quickly to secure the nuclear facilities, destroy them completely and then leave quickly. This operation would be fraught with risk, and undoubtedly it would incur high casualties, and the possibility of devastating failure would be very high,

Yes. It would be risky. War is.

Casualties? More than the initial invasion of Iraq, but not as many as your post seems to convey you believe.

and there is a real question as to whether the military is capable of pulling it off.

Perhaps for you.

I don't think there is any question at all.

[corolaelwis]

See where as some bed wetting liberals keep clinging onto the hope te debate in 08 will be about Iraq most of us know it'll be Iran that is the main issue and the person most likely to take us to war if ned be will win.

[SypeKifef]

good democrats have balls im proud. never ever show weakness to an enemy, even if it is a bluff.

[Intockatt]

I've heard people say that the only feasible operation that would guarantee we took out their capability would involve inserting large numbers of troops quickly to secure the nuclear facilities, destroy them completely and then leave quickly. This operation would be fraught with risk, and undoubtedly it would incur high casualties, and the possibility of devastating failure would be very high, and there is a real question as to whether the military is capable of pulling it off. of course the military is capable of it. The military is very capable of fighting conventional battlefield type wars. It is long protracted insurgencies that are the weakness of a conventional military and conventional approaches to warfare. The U.S. militaris can still squash these countries like a bug, it is just occupiying them for extended periods of time and trying to get them to adopt western values that is proving to be difficult. I think however this is much of the result of civil corruption and neighboring countries (namely Iran) stoking the insurgency, preciely for the reason that they dont' want to United States to have the will to attack them and stop their nuclear weapons program.
I am glad to see the democrats have at least the sense to realize that Iran is a problem that needs to be dealt with. The inherent structure of our two party system ensures that both parties will most of the time tend towards the middle of the road on most issues. Even if we had a parlimentary system and coalition governments I think the majority would still come out in support of what needed to be done in the Middle East.

[Shipsyspeepay]

I wanna see just how tough micheal moore promised to get on the democrats now? Micheal Moore said after the Dems took power a month ago QUOTE,,, We Voted for you for a reason,,To bring our men and women home from combat,,If you dont bring them home im gonna get 10 times tougher than i did on the republicans.. Gee does that mean now hes gonna make a movie called
""Traitors of Society""??

[BJEugene]

of course the military is capable of it. The military is very capable of fighting conventional battlefield type wars. It is long protracted insurgencies that are the weakness of a conventional military and conventional approaches to warfare. The U.S. militaris can still squash these countries like a bug, it is just occupiying them for extended periods of time and trying to get them to adopt western values that is proving to be difficult. I think however this is much of the result of civil corruption and neighboring countries (namely Iran) stoking the insurgency, preciely for the reason that they dont' want to United States to have the will to attack them and stop their nuclear weapons program.
I am glad to see the democrats have at least the sense to realize that Iran is a problem that needs to be dealt with. The inherent structure of our two party system ensures that both parties will most of the time tend towards the middle of the road on most issues. Even if we had a parlimentary system and coalition governments I think the majority would still come out in support of what needed to be done in the Middle East.

As long as we keep Liberal pussies away from the Area! What am I saying, Liberal pussies will stay away unless they are protected by a Division of Marines the fuckin COWARDS!! Hey Andy, Hey Goober

[Susanleech]

Dont be too shocked--it was the left that got us into Vietnam.

[Susanleech]

I wanna see just how tough micheal moore promised to get on the democrats now? Micheal Moore said after the Dems took power a month ago QUOTE,,, We Voted for you for a reason,,To bring our men and women home from combat,,If you dont bring them home im gonna get 10 times tougher than i did on the republicans.. Gee does that mean now hes gonna make a movie called
""Traitors of Society""??

I was always suprised that Moore didnt direct "Super Size Me"--that would be right up his alley.

[Shipsyspeepay]

I was always suprised that Moore didnt direct "Super Size Me"--that would be right up his alley.

I like that movie..It too bad we cant file a lawsuit against McDonalds because of the cheeseburger law bush signed.

[Susanleech]

I like that movie..It too bad we cant file a lawsuit against McDonalds because of the cheeseburger law bush signed.

Too many lawsuits in this country for another one. Those fat slobs suing McDonalds and the assclown who spilled hot coffee on herself were embarrasing enough.

[Haremporblape]

Israel is pretty comfortable with the idea of 'anticipatory self-defense', the same sort of self defense that was the motivation for an attack that destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1982. Janes even goes as far as to say evidence indicates that Israel might launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike under certain conditions.

I believe -- and I'm interested on y'alls thoughts on this outrageous statement -- that, even if we have serious cause for serious worry about Iran as a nuclear state, Israel would just 'take care of it' before we would even have a chance to get mired in Iran.

[Shipsyspeepay]

Israel is pretty comfortable with the idea of 'anticipatory self-defense', the same sort of self defense that was the motivation for an attack that destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1982. Janes even goes as far as to say evidence indicates that Israel might launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike under certain conditions.

I believe -- and I'm interested on y'alls thoughts on this outrageous statement -- that, even if we have serious cause for serious worry about Iran as a nuclear state, Israel would just 'take care of it' before we would even have a chance to get mired in Iran.

Wanna know how israel got nuclear weapons? American military smuggled ours into israel. But bush comdems North Korea smuggle nuclear weapons to terrorist.Sound like a double standard.

[merloermfgj]

Wanna know how israel got nuclear weapons? American military smuggled ours into israel. But bush comdems North Korea smuggle nuclear weapons to terrorist.Sound like a double standard.

Who smuggled them into Israel and when?