Pro-war so called media beating the drums of war again

[Boris]

Why wouldn't it be media???

I've wondered the same thing myself.  There's something I'm missing with this "so called media" bit.

Same here. It doesn't really makes any sense. Perhaps Jfern is referring to the so-called liberal media?

In any case, he's omitting some sort of adjective.

[John Dibble]

It's kind of a moot point though. Iran just isn't going to nuke Israel out of the blue. Israel would easily flatten them in the counter-strike.

Yes, I know that. MAD theory all over again.

Expect, of course, is that the big difference here is that most of the Iranian leaders don't care if they die or not. And actually dying is thier GOAL.

Given how Islamist leaders seem to have more of a history of sending their followers to do the dying for them, I doubt that's the case.

[Gabu]

It's kind of a moot point though. Iran just isn't going to nuke Israel out of the blue. Israel would easily flatten them in the counter-strike.

Yes, I know that. MAD theory all over again.

Expect, of course, is that the big difference here is that most of the Iranian leaders don't care if they die or not. And actually dying is thier GOAL.

Given how Islamist leaders seem to have more of a history of sending their followers to do the dying for them, I doubt that's the case.

I'm not particularly sure whether or not Islamist leaders even believe all of the stuff that they say.  People who get some form of absolute power over a group of people tend to all go in the same direction, regardless of their stated motivations, which is becoming obsessed with retaining power at all costs.

[Rob]

Rob, I think you're looking way into one article.

Possibly. It disturbs me when I saw Democrats using much the same rhetoric they used against Iraq in 2002, though, and I think we should be concerned with it. 

That statement is merely stating the obvious; it certainly isn't advocating for a full-scale Iran invasion. There are ways to stop Iran from ascertaining nuclear weapons that don't involve invasions.

True; we can always launch a preemptive nuclear strike against them. No troops necessary.

Okay, if Iran launches a nuclear weapon at Tel Aviv (although meh, I'm no fan of Israel), the United States, or a NATO nation, then sure, they should be attacked. Don't read too much into one statement.

But Edwards is talking about preemptive action here. All options are on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power.

He's not veering right on Iran at all. Nor has he moved "left" on Iran either. Take yourself out of the those two-dimensional terms.

Agreed.

Again, the author is reading into this too much. This is nothing but speculation.

Given the location, it would seem pretty clear to me that Edwards is pandering. Of course, that's just speculation.

What? If the Average Democratic-Primary voter read Edwards' words in an  un-biased setting, they really wouldn't give a sh**t.

Probably true. I can tell you that this is unpopular among the activist base, but who knows how much strength they can exert in the primaries?

The source of the article is also lousy; I don't trust these left-wing sites any more than I do the right-wing sites

The Nation was founded by abolitionists in 1865, and has been a strong advocate for progressive causes ever since. It's a voice of intellectual respectability on the left. Of course, this wasn't a "real" Nation article (it was posted on their blog).

In a nutshell, I would much rather have someone like Richardson- who understands that military force isn't always the answer, and in fact would be "a totally wrong approach" to Iran- in the White House.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why wouldn't it be media???

I've wondered the same thing myself.  There's something I'm missing with this "so called media" bit.

If they stopped being a bunch of right-wing pro-war hacks, I'd call them the so called liberal media. As it is, they are not interesting in informing the public, and so don't deserve to be called media.

[Gabu]

Why wouldn't it be media???

I've wondered the same thing myself.  There's something I'm missing with this "so called media" bit.

If they stopped being a bunch of right-wing pro-war hacks, I'd call them the so called liberal media. As it is, they are not interesting in informing the public, and so don't deserve to be called media.

But "informing the public" is not something inherent in the definition of "media".  "The media" comes from the noun "medium", i.e., "a means of communicating to a large group of people".  I sort of see what your intentions are, I just don't think that calling them the "so-called media" really makes sense, since they... still are communicating to a large group of people.