Democrats want Iran war even more than the Republicans

Some people on here really dont know as much as they think they do.. They are constantly bashing the Republicans based on other peoples opinions and posts, instead of actually doing the research themselves to find out what they are or are not doing.
The only thing you hear on this site about possible war with Iran is about blaming the war mongering "neocons" in the Bush Admin.
I wonder how many people actually realize who is the BIGGEST advocate of invading Iran and he isnt quiet about it either..
Well, he happens to be a Democrat and his name is Joseph Lieberman. What is his angle, why is he such a huge advocate of war with Iran..
Could it possibly be because he is Jewish and has very close ties with Israel and some Jewish Organizations in the US?

War with Iran



Also, how do you explain the main Democrat Presidential Candidate and probably your next president, Hillary Clinton being on board with this?

Source page



Read that, do some more research, these arent the only pages.. Does Bush want war with Iran? Im almost certain of it but he isnt the only one and when we do it wont just be to take out the Nuke Plants, that was just an excuse to get the ball rolling.
They really just want to invade them, punish them and replace the current leader..
I sure hope all of ths BS is over before my son hits draft age.

Lieberman's partisanship is just for our illusion. He's nothing but a zionist lapdog in real life.

Partisanship means nothing.

Peace

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Dr Love]

Sorry, not a chance.

The US will maintain a presence and expand in the middle east as long as there is a drop of oil under the desert sands. Business is business and political wrangling is just a smoke screen to make the sheep feel like they have some control in the overall process. It's just a well crafted illusion.

Our lives, your sons life; mean nothing to the Corpratracracy.

Have a nice day!!

[edit on 8-10-2007 by whaaa]

You know, if oil was indeed the ENTIRE reason that we are in Iraq and my go to Iran, then why not just invade Venezuela?
Sure they may not have as much but they got quite a bit and its closer and their citizens arent fanatical religious zealots..
I seriously doubt that youd ever see a Venezuelan "martyr" themselves..
Besides, Chavez is a punk azz troublemaker and has actually allied with Iran..
Guilt by association, works for me

1) The "religious" aspect bolsters support quicker than anything...
2) Venezuela doesn't have as much...
3) Venezuela doesn't carry the close ties that Bush does with those in the M.E.

reply to post by Infoholic

---

Im sorry if im misunderstanding but didnt you just re-state at least two of the points that I just made?

I know that religion plays a huge part bolstering support in the M.E.-
What I was saying is that this isnt the case in Venezuela, we wouldnt have the suicide bombings like we have in Iraq.
And I also already said that Venezuela doesnt have as much but their Oil reserves are estimated at about 100 billion barrels, a pretty significant amount..

Im not trying to be rude or a smart azz, I just really dont get what you were trying to say..

thnx

I was agreeing with you....

And adding one.

Apologies for the confusion.

reply to post by Infoholic

---

No, the mistake is mine, I apologize. I'm just so used to the having people just ignore reality for the sake of getting a jab in towards the US, I just wanted clarification. Thank you for the supporting post.

Take Care

Also, I didnt create this thread to gloat or "rub" anything in anyones face.
I created the thread in the interest of fairness, to show some people that may not have known that it isnt just the so called "neocons" that are advocating war with Iran.
Lieberman has always been for a war with Iran and there is only one reason that I can see that hes doing this and that is his relationship with Israel and his ties to Jewish organizations in the United States.
In previous posts, I made reference to the fact that I believe our future President Clinton would hopefully calm things down but after some thought about who may be pulling her strings, Im beginning to rethink my opinion.

After all, several times I've said that I dont really think it matters who plays the part of President because the strings are most likely being pulled from elsewhere.

[edit on 10/8/2007 by Kr0n0s]

There may be more reasons for the US presence in the ME besides oil.

www.npr.org...

Maybe even mystical or religious reasons.

Even more reasons why your son may have a government sponsored trip; to win more converts for the church.

The connections between the ME and west have a long and interesting history.

reply to post by Kr0n0s

---

Invading Venzuela is defintiely not in the cards, we neither want nor need their oil. They have a type of crude known as HEAVY CRUDE. It takes a lot of refining at high costs. It is easier to invade Canada and take their oil sand deposits. It produces naturally refined oil and at much lower costs too.

But I don't want to invade our friends to the north, just using them for a point.

I've said for years that when it comes to War, there is NO difference between the two major parties!. Oh, sure, they may pose and posture for their voter bases. That is more to keep 'we, the people', divided and arguing amongst ourselves so that we don't see what they are doing behind closed doors. Even a so-called anti-war liberal like NY Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton voted to go to war with Iraq, a vote she has done little to distance herself from, even during her run for the Democratic Party's nomination for President. The one thing I will say for her, though, is that unlike John Kerry, she hasn't flip-flopped back and forth over it. That's about the only difference between the two.

Excellent observation. It's not really Bush's fault the "liberal" media were completely uncritical of his WMD propaganda (example: NYT). The liberal hawks created the occasion, and Bush grasped it. People should stop bashing republicans, and focus on the pro-War pro-Lies politics and press people instead that are rising in their backs (like Hillary Clinton or Thomas Friedman for example) who are ultimately responsible for the Iraq Quagmire and it's millions of victims, regardless of what partisan moral grounds they claim to posses.


[edit on 19-1-2008 by ergoli]

I agree that a lot of the Democrats, especially Lieberman (who is a Democrat in name only) are just as hawkish or not more so than the Republicans. Historically that has always been true too - look at JKF running on a nonexistent "bomber gap" in 1960, etc.

The Republicans however, especially since Carter (who was not quite the peacenik the Right likes to paint him as), have traditionally been a good bit more hawkish than the Democrats.

The Republicans understand humans' tribal/xenophobic programming better than the Democrats ( who like most "progressive liberal" types have a somewhat idealized view of human nature ) and are better at exploiting it.

But there is not much doubt that Hillary especially is probably just as inclined to overseas interventionism as Bush, look at her husband's record... not to mention her unconditional support for Israel and for the Iraq War.

An Obama administration might be somewhat less interventionist than Clinton's, a Gravel of Kucinich adminstration even less so, but the only candidate explicitly taking a stand for Republic over Empire would be Ron Paul - which means a lot of powerful people with a vested interest in the status quo (especially defense contractors and oil multinationals) would like to see him as ignored and marginalized as possible.

Not surprisingly, they have been fairly successful at it.

I really wonder if the US's current drive for global domination can be stopped from within, by any means short of civil war.

The alternative, I fear, is the very real risk of a nuclear first strike against the US by nations (I doubt it will be just one) that fear losing their sovereignty otherwise.

[edit on 1/19/08 by xmotex]