View Story | 408 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
If you want to go to war based on human rights, then by your logic we should attack Sudan, China, and other such places while you're at it. Which means that your advocacy for continuing the Bush plan of perpetual warfare is reduced to an absurdity.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:51:57 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Just the countries that advocate terror and fund it worldwide.
No more Republican rule.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:53:05 PM PDT
So, as far as I'm concerned, he is lying about Iran as well. You've been had.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:55:29 PM PDT
Bush lied on Iraq. But Iran is a different story altogether.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:57:33 PM PDT
Why do you still trust him? Really, WHY?
John McCain on SCHIP
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:58:07 PM PDT
And I trust the theocrats in Iran even less.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:00:34 PM PDT
Then why do you believe him when he says Iran is sponsoring terror worldwide? All we have is his word.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:03:19 PM PDT
a liar?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:17:18 PM PDT
by world wide? All I see is support for Hezbollah and Hamas.... regional organizations. Also there was that one bombing in Argentina. But do you have any proff that they'd strike the US?
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:19:21 PM PDT
It was regional, except for the international attacks?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:21:00 PM PDT
against a jewish compound does not a threat to the US make.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:23:06 PM PDT
You contested "international." Iran does support international terrorism. That is a fact.
As far as a what a threat to the U.S. does make, who the fuck do you suppose blew up our Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1982?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:29:47 PM PDT
And then Reagan 'cut and run' from Lebanon.
And by the way, that was Hezbollah who did it. Just because Iran gives them money doesn't mean they take orders from Tehran.
Do you have any evidence that they (or Hezbollah) have done anything to us recently?
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:32:01 PM PDT
What have you bombed for me lately?
LOL!
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:36:52 PM PDT
I'm asking for proof Iran has directly (or, indirectly through Hezbollah) hurt us in the recent past.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:40:03 PM PDT
you're just anti-clue.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:42:26 PM PDT
I'm the one asking you to justify your claim that Iran is such a great threat we ought to invade. You make the claim, you have the burden of proof. They have not committed terrorist acts on US soil.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:46:03 PM PDT
Iran should be given the benefit of the doubt? Are you placing your faith in Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs?
Good luck with that.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:47:43 PM PDT
Instead of being paranoid and assuming things where I have no proof.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:49:31 PM PDT
it doesn't mean they're not after you. They've sworn it, since their theocracy's founding.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:51:21 PM PDT
never mind that they have nothing to gain by destabilizing Iraq, because Maliki is a friend of Iran. They actually discussed a mutual defense pact before the US shot it down.
never mind that they've never actually carried out an attack on US forces in recent years.
never mind that the reason they don't like us is precisely because we keep interfering with them.
When did they 'swear' to destroy America? I'd like to see a link please.
Face it, they have nothing to gain. There is no realistic way for them to harm the US without inviting destruction on themselves, even if they dedicated every waking moment to attacking us.
by Hobelhouse on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:58:18 PM PDT
U.S. since their regime took power several decades ago?
How many times has Iran attacked the U.S. homeland since they took power?
How many times has Iran invaded Israel and wiped it off the map since they took power several decades ago?
Yeah, we'd better bomb them now, before its too late?!?!?
"From war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption follows, until all wealth is aggregated, and the Republic is destroyed." Lincoln
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:28:30 AM PDT
Iran has not launched an aggressive war against a neighbor since 1785 and does not have a history of military expansionism.
per Juan Cole...
Too bad America doesn't have this sort of history. Makes me wonder a bit about who might be the real aggressor.
by Jagger on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:33:11 PM PDT
terrorism on a far broader scale for decades. Get this into your head:
War is Terrorism
Maybe you didnt get that, I'll try again:
War is terrorism
A war against Iran will be a terrorist act against every Iranian citizen who also thinks their own government is bullshit. Does that make sense to you?
"Cynicism is a sorry wisdom." - Barack Obama
by BlueGenes on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:26:18 PM PDT
Argentine right wing may have been responsible. It's a well known controversy in South America, and of course, no one knows about it here.
(-9.13, -8.10)
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:05:52 AM PDT
We are discussing your shilling for George Bush. As far as I'm aware, Carter does not advocate an attack on Iran.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:20:12 PM PDT
I hate George Bush. But I can hate the theocracy in Iran at the same time.
And President Carter did authorize and pursue an incursion (albeit failed) into the Iranian theocracy. That is a fact.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:22:07 PM PDT
Does Carter support an attack on Iran in 2007?
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:25:48 PM PDT
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:32:34 PM PDT
So, you don't know jack shit about what you are talking about.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:44:03 PM PDT
since I cannot give you the full mind of President Carter, he didn't order military hardware into the Iranian theocracy?
WTF?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:45:32 PM PDT
Just because he ordered the attempt to rescue the hostages 30 years ago does not mean that he therefore supports your new friend George Bush's plans to attack Iran with an army that does not exist. Like I say, I asked a simple question, and you don't know the answer.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:47:32 PM PDT
It was a military operation inside the borders of a soverign nation.
It wasn't rolling an ambulance for a traffic accident, exactly.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:49:02 PM PDT
You can play the semantics game all you want. But you can't provide a simple answer over whether Carter supports Bush on Iran in 2007.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:50:42 PM PDT
whether he supports an invasion today. All I know is that when he was President, he did commit U.S. troops to an operation inside the borders of Iran.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:52:19 PM PDT
Given that it was 30 years ago.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:53:38 PM PDT
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:03:44 PM PDT
And President Carter did authorize and pursue an incursion (albeit failed) into the Iranian theocracy.
Carter authorized a mission, the goal of which was to free our hostages from captivity. It wasn't "an incursion into the Iranian theocracy" it was a rescue mission. Leaving that part out is kinda Republican of you. Just sayin'.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:30:27 PM PDT
Did President Carter drive a Country Squire Station Wagon over the fucking border, or order in military hardware?
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:33:42 PM PDT
You are using Carter's decision to try rescuing the hostages as some sort of justification or moral equivalent for an invasion today. It doesn't work and you shouldn't be trying it. What happened tonight, this is some seriously strange shit coming from you?
by MajorFlaw on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:38:56 PM PDT
Jesus.
Ordering our military to cross into a foreign, soverign country is not simply a "rescue." It wasn't a traffic accident.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:41:37 PM PDT
preemptive strike and a mission to rescue hostages this really doesn't serve any purpose. Your comment is reactive without being in any way responsive. I gives up.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:46:51 PM PDT
Gotta do what I gotta do.
This guy's arguing bullshit just to argue bullshit.
I haven't checked his history, but I HAVE to assume troll. Otherwise, he's just drunk, pissy, and wasting everyone's time. His arguments are meant for nothing more than arguing. This isn't an intelligent discussion or even close to it. Carter trying a rescue operation is now Carter attacking Iran? Whatever.
by PJ Jefferson on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 04:31:40 AM PDT
a desperate act brought about as a direct result of 30 years of US support for a corrupt dictatorship. Did that ever enter your calculus?
by Florida Democrat on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:08:34 AM PDT
with you on this subject.
You have heard of his opinions stated in his book, The Blood of Abraham?
Excess ain't rebellion. You're drinking what they're selling. - Cake
by slatsg on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:36:06 PM PDT
Claiming FDR as an advocate for pre-emptive war is ridiculous, and the rest of this mess likewise.
Kill me before I have to think again!
by Jacob Freeze on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:01:25 PM PDT
I think I smell elephant.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:20:58 PM PDT
Harvey Milk is absolutely a net positive contributor to dKos. So he's wrong here, whoop-dee-do.
Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.
by Simplify on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:37:53 PM PDT
His crap is no different than the White House press handouts that the press laps up. I know that might be hard for some to deal with, but some people, for whatever reason, go over to the dark side and drink the kool-aid. Right now, he is a liability.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:42:45 PM PDT
Many, many Democrats agree with what he says in this diary. I think it's a useful exercise to figure out the best ways to knock this argument down.
Another way of looking at it is that some of our Dems in Congress might be considered trolls around these parts too.
by Simplify on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:48:36 PM PDT
Maybe some of the cowards in Congress, but not rank and file Democrats. Do you have polling data that shows otherwise?
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:30:21 PM PDT
You're surprised that there are Democrats who don't support George W. Bush, don't want to go to war with Iran, but think Iran is pursuing a nuclear program and that this is a bad thing?
Remember, Edwards commands a majority of support on Daily Kos, but in the low teens in polls of all Americans. You may not have your finger on the pulse of the nation or even the party, no matter how certain you are in the rightness of your cause.
Like HarveyMilk, I hate George W. Bush and don't trust him. Unlike you, I can figure out what's going on in Iran and don't like it either. I have no neo-con illusions that war or bombing is a solution, but I'm not going to keep my mouth shut or lie about what a wonderful, enlightened regime Iran is for my gay brothers and sisters just because saying otherwise could overlap with what Bush might say.
by brittain33 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:04:27 AM PDT
But what about rank and file Democrats? And he was doing more than just standing up for gay people in Iran -- he was advocating attacking Iran. We've already been there once with attacking a country that was not a threat to us militarily. Why do we want to go there again?
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:56:35 AM PDT
exactly are you using for proof that they do that? Bush's words? Maybe our intelligence That has worked so well in the past.
I like you and all HM, but I think you may have lost it my freind.
Edwards Democrats ActBlue
by LaEscapee on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:55:44 PM PDT
The hijackers? Khomenei's words? Iran's funding and support worldwide of anti-American, Islamic-fundamentalist terrorist?
Was Carter a symp of the right-wing when he sent helicopters into Iran in 1979?
What the hell is wrong with you people? No one hates George W. Bush more than I do. And, yes, he screwed the fuckin' pooch with respect to Iraq. But that does not mean that we face no threats in the world.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:00:03 PM PDT
We would face a lot fewer threats if we did not pander to the military industrial complex year in and year out and build military bases where we are not welcome. If we actually engaged in a peaceful strategy, we would be a lot less likely to be attacked.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:02:28 PM PDT
But it doesn't change the fact that Iran sponsors international terrorism and is a threat to our national security.
by HarveyMilk on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:18:34 PM PDT
All we have is your word for it, and the word of your new Republican friends.
by Eternal Hope on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:21:44 PM PDT
Iran . . . is a threat to our national security.
I'm still waiting for you to make the case that Iran is a threat to our security. So far I see a lotta words but they signify nothing. Try harder.
by MajorFlaw on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:24:08 PM PDT
Iran sponsors international terrorism (which, in some places, they do) and is a threat to our national security (which they are), this does not mean that Bush is right in how to deal with them or that war is the best way to deal with them.
(In fact, it is off the charts in being irrational and idiotic.)
The Soviets were a far greater threat to our security and we didn't fight a war with them. And we won.
by Justanothernyer on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:24:15 PM PDT
I can't rec this comment highly enough.
by brittain33 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:05:16 AM PDT
be a bigger threat to our security?
by BlueGenes on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:29:29 PM PDT
The Prince of Peace has been usurped by the God of War.
by Spoc42 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 02:59:55 AM PDT
I guess we start with an attack on the United Staes of America, which in the last ten years has killed more innocent civilians with weapons of war and terror than all other countries and non-state terrorist organizations combined.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ~Edward R. Murrow
by ActivistGuy on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 06:29:04 AM PDT
by BlueGenes on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:58:38 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 408 comments