Lieberman: U.S. should weigh Iran attack

[shrpskn]

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."
The U.S. accuses Iran of fostering terrorism and Tehran's nuclear ambitions have brought about international reproach.
Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 who now represents Connecticut as an in***endent, spoke of Iranians' role in the continued violence in Iraq.
"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them."
He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."
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."
To deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson said tough negotiation is called for.
"I would talk to them, but I would build an international coalition that would promote and push economic sanctions on them," Richardson said. "Sanctions would work on Iran. They are susceptible to disinvestment policy. They are susceptible to cuts, economic sanctions in commodities."
On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's detention of at least four Americans is unwarranted but will not stop Washington from trying to engage Iran on other matters, including its disputed nuclear program and alleged support of insurgents in Iraq.
In an Associated Press interview, Rice also appeared to cast doubt on whether the U.S. would take its tentative diplomatic outreach to Iran any further for now.
The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors in Iraq met last month for the first public, substantive high-level discussions the two countries have held in nearly three decades. Although limited to the topic of violence and instability in Iraq, the talks have been seen as a possible window to better relations.
Immediately after the meeting in Baghdad, Iran announced plans for another. But U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Washington would decide only after the Iraqi government issued an invitation.
U.S. officials also said they wanted to see Iran follow up on U.S. complaints that it is equipping and helping insurgents who attack American forces.
Lieberman spoke on "Face the Nation" on CBS. Richardson was on "Late Edition" on CNN.

[Hoggage_54]

No surprise Joe would say that...

[Tock]

That's nuts.

The US military should not have been there in the first place. After the Bush people sent the military over there, it turns out they didn't have a clue what they'd do after they got Saddam, and things went downhill from there.
They mismanaged the whole thing, lied to the American public so they could start the war, and now we're in a big sticky stinkin' pile of mess. And now Lieberman wants to make matters worse by dropping a few bombs on Iran?

There's fixin' to be a nasty war between Turkey and the folks in northern Iraq. Ya, seems that the locals in south Turkey and the locals in north Iraq are all related, one big family divided by their border. And both groups want to be united so they can have their own country.
In the grand scheme of things, while that's probably the best thing for all parties concerned, Turkey doesn't want to lose that bit of real estate, and the US promised Turkey that, in return for its help with the war, the US would make sure that the re-unification wouldn't happen.
But, it looks like the locals want to get back together, and the US is gonna have to send lots more troops to the north to keep things under control. When this happens, where are the extra troops gonna come from to staff a war with Iran?

My guess is ------> a draft. How many of you 18 to 34 year old guys are ready to be drafted to go fight a stupid, pointless war with Iraq and Iran? If you die over there, your family will be consoled to know that you died to give American oil corporations lots of gas to sell at big profits to SUV drivers.


JHC . . .

[Hoggage_54]

I have a feeling that the country of Iraq wont be around for much longer and end up being divided into smaller countries.

Spreading freedom and Democracy with the barrel of a gun... Brilliant idea!

[eliteforce]

lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them."

It is not an "international rule of law" that Iran not have a nuclear weapons program. There is a NP treaty but that is not international law, otherwise-Israel, US, France, Pakistan, etc.


"If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

They are playing by the rules, when you invade a country illegally and start fighting a nationalist insurgency, the countries opposed to the dirty war have a right to arm the "freedom fighters"..remember the Soviets in Afghanistan..was the US & Pakistan not playing by the rules?

Lieberman is worried about Americans getting killed in Iraq like I'm worried about Paris Hiltons jail sentence. Surely he understands that the resulting Iranian missile barrage, anti-ship missile attacks and introduction of sophisticated weapons to the insurgents in Iraq will result in many, many more than 200 American deaths-forcing the US to retaliate again and again-out of control war; so why would he be interested in starting such a massive bloodbath? Simple..the zionist movement has been based on successive mass expultions of palestinians, particularly 1948,1967..given the demographic balance and Israel's collapsing 'democracy' the zionists feel that they're about due for another one, right wing creeps like Netanyahoo have spoken openly about creating a huge crisis as a cover to expel millions of Palestinians from the west bank and even Israel--so this lieberman is ponying up to deliver this bloodbath for the Kahanists agenda.

[shrpskn]

Wow!

[RA]

Out of the Democrats I probably respect his opinion the most. He doesnt just follow liberal dogma.

[Musicman]

unless youre a soldier and have been on the front lines, please dont belittle all that we have done over there, 3 ***loyments to iraq, 1 to afganistan, lost many many friends, the last thing we all wanna hear is we did it for nothing. Freedom isnt free.

[Tock]

unless youre a soldier and have been on the front lines, please dont belittle all that we have done over there, 3 ***loyments to iraq, 1 to afganistan, lost many many friends, the last thing we all wanna hear is we did it for nothing. Freedom isnt free.

War is a terrible thing, and war should always be the last resort in efforts to defend ourselves. Unfortunately, this miserable war was not necessary.
Sure, Saddam was being an a--h--- diplomatically and pissed off the Bush people. But that's their job, to deal with idiot foreign leaders without starting wars.

But Bush wanted war. The UN wanted their WMD arms inspector to have more time to look for bombs, Bush refused to wait 30 days, and then started his war. Turns out that they didn't have WMD's. Turns out that the justification they presented to Americans was crap, and it turns out that people in the Bush Administration knew it was crap.

I hate to say this, but the Iraq war was needless. The war does nothing for American's freedom. The Republicans in power passed legislation that compromise our Constitutional rights in the name of Homeland Security.
However, some corporations connected with the Bush Administration have become quite rich from this war:
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/stock_troop2.html
and US oil corporations expected to make a lot of $$ also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm

The truth is, Bush and his people have badly managed foreign policy. They have pissed of just about every other country on the planet; the USA's reputation is shot. The US has operated secret prisons in foreign countries that tortured prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention. The US has detained prisoners for years without telling them what crime they are suspected of, and refuses to allow them opportunity to tell their story in a court of law.

Look, I've been in the military, I know what that's all about. I deeply regret the loss of lives in this war, but it didn't have to happen this way. Bush mismanaged foreign affairs, started a needless war, and now the US is deeper in financial debt, hated by more foreigners, and 3000+ American Servicemen are dead. Needlessly.

Ya, as you say, Freedom isn't free. But this war has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. I hate to say it, but it's all about oil. Your friends died so US oil companies can control Iraqi oil. Things are badly managed over there, so even that probably won't happen . . . which makes things not only needless, but pointless.

Sorry. But that's what's going on . . .

[Second2None]

unless youre a soldier and have been on the front lines, please dont belittle all that we have done over there, 3 ***loyments to iraq, 1 to afganistan, lost many many friends, the last thing we all wanna hear is we did it for nothing. Freedom isnt free.

Bump hooa
RANGERS LEAD THE WAY

[mcpeepants]

unless youre a soldier and have been on the front lines, please dont belittle all that we have done over there, 3 ***loyments to iraq, 1 to afganistan, lost many many friends, the last thing we all wanna hear is we did it for nothing. Freedom isnt free.

The Afghan and Iraq wars have nothing to do with American freedom unless you mean freedom to access to oil and natural gas contracts. Iraq and Afghanistan were not restricting or were capable of restricting are rights and civil liberties. How can it be about freedom when you don't want civilians to have the freedom to criticize the wars?