Liberals say Iran's threat can be minimized by "talking" rather than the threat of military force

Question

Bush and Co. (and most Americans) see a rising threat in Iran. The parties differ, though, in their ideas on how to nip that threat in the bud.

Some say the threat of a military strike will keep them in line. But many liberal Democrats say "we need to talk" with Iran rather than fight with them.

Hmmm... maybe. But when Iran's President Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at the liberal Columbia University. He was insulted in his introduction and frequently thereafter. Is this the liberals' idea of "taking" with Iran? How can they see this as helpful? Why would Ahmadinejad want to participate in such "talks."

Have Democrats given away the White House in '08 over this issue?

Discuss.

Answer 1

Force is the only way to deal with extremists. Unfortunately, Iran now has Putin firmly on their side, so Bush must carefully consider Russia's response if we do attack.
The upcoming months will be interesting, as the US only has a small window of opportunity to strike Iran. When President Clinton is elected, she'll attempt to negotiate up to the point that Iran nukes us.
Diplomacy? Doesn't work with a dictator.

Answer 2

You state that most Americans see a rising threat from Iran but offer no evidence of that statement. So it must be your opinion only unless you have evidence from a reliable source.

When has it ever been bad to talk and use sanctions before war? Why must we fight all the time. Are we wanting to be seen as bullies unable to reason or talk to people before we start fighting with them? What people are saying is give talk a chance. It worked well in other Middle Eastern countries and it is working with N. Korea. It may be a problem for those with an itchy trigger finger to be patient and wait for the talks and the sanctions to work but it does take time. Sword rattling in Iran is obviously got some scared to death. They can do very little damage to the US right now and probably aren't stupid enough to try something later on either. Militarily Iran is weak. Many of their weapons are old ones we sold to them during the Reagan era some 20+ years ago.

We need to heed the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt when he said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". Keep the percieved enemy at arms length and watch what he does but don't attack him until he does something to harm us. Then prevent him while he tries it and make sure he doesn't do it again.

To quote his cousin, Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far". Teddy is asking us to talk first and use the big stick only if needed. Make sure the other guy knows you have and are willing to use the big stick but don't use it first.

Finally a quote from a neocon hero that describes well what their tactic is:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country." -Hermann Goering, second in command in the Third Reich

Answer 3

Obama isn't in any position to threaten Iran.  If he were, I doubt they would consider it a serious threat.  If the fellow doesn't have a problem sitting in a church, whose leader gives gifts to Louis Farrakhan, (Spell it) why would they take him seriously? I for one am just a wee bit concerned about this Muslim connection.  Don't forget, his father is/was Muslim. No, he had no control over who fathered him--and I have nothing against that. However, I'm concerned that in the future, should he be in the White House, his policies may be swayed in the wrong direction by his past. 

Answer 4

First of all Columbia is not that liberal, NYU is, but Columbia is middle of the road for New York. I do not know which way is the best way to deal with Iran, but as long as we are mired in the mess in Iraq that we created, we really can't be much of a military threat and they know it.

Reagan, who is probably rolling over in his grave, at the way his party has been hijacked would NEVer have spread us this thin and would have been able to offer a seroius threat to Iran. But they know we can't attack and so they continue down their plotted path.

As to the White House in '08, it is still the Dems to lose and I think the Republicans will lose more seats in the both houses too. It need not be that way, but Bush has soiled his party and it will be hard to recover by '08.

Answer 5

Its called " diplomacy ", War should be the last resort. Dont get me wrong if all things fail, then war it is but before that we must exhaust every possible action. We know what is the outcome of going to war on a whimp/without any planning, e.g. Iraq.
You won't see the " diplomacy " efforts being glorified in the media since it's being done behind the scence, instead you will see the gorilla posturing from both sides.

War will be bad for both sides:
US - we are fighting in 2 fronts, we are streched financially and militarily.
Iran - they don't want to go back to the stone-age

Please, dont assume you speak for most americans.
_____________________________________

EDIT: Assuming the intel is true regarding Iran acquiring WMD.

Answer 6

The first strike to Iran will be from Isreal.

We could dance around the idea of talking for years. Letting them stall us would be a great plan and once they get the nuke, there are no talks.

But, with what happened in Iraq, it's hard as an American to believe the administration about anything they say about Iran.

The UN has said Iran doesn't have nukes. If we go ahead and attack Iran we will look like we are in the wrong. And the bad guys.

I'm not a fan of the US stance on not talking to certain countries or terrorists. It's stupid.

Answer 7

What 'threat' from Iran???

You really think Iran are planning to get a nuclear weapon and blow up the United States?!? That is ridiculous. It is pure propaganda put out by the Bush admin, and you are swallowing it.

They said exactly the same before they went into Iraq - 'Saddam is planning to get WMDs and could attack America at any point!'.. was it true?? No. But we went in and invaded anyway, and you probably still support the invasion now.

Even if Iran WERE seeking nuclear weapons (and there isn't any concrete evidence of this).. it has been estimated that it would take them up to 7-8 years before it would be completely developed.

All that bombing Iran would achieve is killing yet more thousands of innocent people.

Answer 8

Iran isn't a threat to their Arab neighbours in the same way that Iraq was. If the US were to strike Iran, it would be viewed very negatively by all countries in the region except for Israel.

Attacking a country like Iran and not finishing the job is likely to motivate some would be terrorists. Don't forget, the Clinton administration attempted to kill Osama Bin Larden with cruise missiles before 9/11.

Answer 9

No, they haven't given away the White House, this will be one issue where they will make the majority of America happy. President Bush's approval rate is low because of the situation in Iraq. America is ready for someone who will have a better relationship with the rest of the world. People, both Democrat and Republican, are tired of the stance we took with Iraq. The American public is ready for the troops to come home, and ready to use diplomacy instead of force. That is why the Democrats will win.

Answer 10

There is no placating and implacable enemy; particularly one that has a messianic self-image such as Mahmoud.

The wisest course of action would be to assist those elements inside of Iran that are desperately trying to rid themselves of the tyrannical Mullahs.

Although I'm sure the far-lefts would have a problem with this as well.
Better call up Bill and Madeline A. since they did such a great job with Kimmy and OBL